PBWC's Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Powder Basin Watershed Council’s BROWNLEE SUBBASIN WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Prepared for the Powder River Basin Watershed Council Baker City, Oregon Through funding from Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

December 2012

Dedication

This assessment is dedicated to Bruce Lindley for his long service on the Powder Basin Watershed Council and his commitment to conservation in the Pine Creek Watershed.

Prepared by:

Nancy Rorick, Nancy Rorick Consulting, Baker City, Oregon

Dennis O’Conner, Habitat Concepts, Portland, Oregon

Jim Young, Halfway, Oregon

Tim Bliss, Baker City, Oregon

Aaron Bliesner, Monitoring Coordinator, PBWC, Baker City, Oregon

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Preface ...... 12

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1-13 Background and Goals ...... 1-16 Document Layout ...... 1-16 Taxonomy and Terms ...... 1-17 Stakeholder Guiding Issues ...... 1-17 4th Field Subbasin General Description ...... 1-18 Landforms and Topography ...... 1-18 Geology ...... 1-19 Soils ...... 1-20 Climate ...... 1-20 Ownership and Land Use ...... 1-21 References ...... 1-23

Chapter 2 Historic Conditions Assessment...... 2-24 Introduction ...... 2-24 Materials and Methods ...... 2-25 Historical Natural Environment ...... 2-25 Historical Disturbance Regimes ...... 2-26 Historical Land Use and Trends by Humans (Including Modifications of the Environment) ...... 2-26 Results ...... 2-27 Historical Natural Environment ...... 2-27 Historical Fish Abundance and Distribution...... 2-29 Historical Wildlife Distribution ...... 2-31 Historical Disturbance and Modifications ...... 2-33 Historical Land Use and Trends by Humans Including Modifications of the Environment . 2- 35 Euro-American settlement ...... 2-37 Transportation ...... 2-37 Miners and Mining ...... 2-39 Farmers, Orchardists and Ranchers ...... 2-40 Historical Time Line ...... 2-44 Discussion ...... 2-45 Data Gaps ...... 2-48 Key Findings and Recommendations ...... 2-48 References ...... 2-50

iii

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 3 Channel Habitat Type...... 3-52 Introduction ...... 3-52 Materials and Methods ...... 3-52 Results and Discussion ...... 3-56 Data Needs and Mapping Confidence ...... 3-62 Data Gaps ...... 3-62 Conclusions ...... 3-62 References ...... 3-63

Chapter 4 Hydrology and Water Use ...... 4-64 Introduction ...... 4-64 Hydrologic Units ...... 4-64 Climate ...... 4-68 Hydrography ...... 4-72 Hydrology ...... 4-74 Materials and Methods ...... 4-75 Results ...... 4-76 Summary of Hydrologic Issues ...... 4-107 Water Use ...... 4-108 Materials and Methods ...... 4-109 Results ...... 4-109 Discussion ...... 4-121 Critical Questions Hydrology ...... 4-121 Critical Questions Water Use...... 4-122 Data Gaps ...... 4-123 Key Findings ...... 4-123 References ...... 4-126

Chapter 5 Riparian and Wetlands ...... 5-133 Introduction ...... 5-133 Materials and Methods ...... 5-133 Discussion ...... 5-135 Historical Changes in Vegetation ...... 5-135 Other Available Data ...... 5-147 Results ...... 5-147 Vegetation Overview and Potential Riparian Vegetation ...... 5-147 Conclusions ...... 5-148 Wetlands ...... 5-150 Purpose ...... 5-150 Methods ...... 5-151

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Discussion ...... 5-151 Data Gaps ...... 5-152 References ...... 5-152

Chapter 6 Sediment Sources Assessment ...... 6-154 Introduction ...... 6-154 Materials and Methods ...... 6-154 Geology ...... 6-157 Landslides ...... 6-158 Roads ...... 6-159 Culverts ...... 6-159 Gullies ...... 6-160 Range Land ...... 6-161 Fire ...... 6-161 Mining ...... 6-161 Areas of special concern ...... 6-164 Conclusions ...... 6-170 References ...... 6-171

Chapter 7 Channel Modification Assessment ...... 7-172 Introduction ...... 7-172 Methods ...... 7-173 Results ...... 7-174 Conclusions ...... 7-175 References ...... 7-176

Chapter 8 Water Quality Assessment ...... 8-177 Introduction ...... 8-177 Materials and Methods ...... 8-177 Results ...... 8-179 303d List ...... 8-179 Water Temperature ...... 8-180 Toxic Substances ...... 8-185 Infectious Organisms ...... 8-186 Biocriteria ...... 8-187 Habitat Modification ...... 8-187 Flow Modification ...... 8-188 Sedimentation ...... 8-189 pH ...... 8-189 Miscellaneous Pollutants ...... 8-190 Conclusions ...... 8-191

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Data Gaps ...... 8-191 References ...... 8-192

Chapter 9 Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 9-193 Introduction ...... 9-193 History ...... 9-193 Materials and Methods ...... 9-194 Results and Discussion ...... 9-197 References ...... 9-200

Chapter 10 Watershed Condition Evaluation ...... 10-202 Introduction ...... 10-202 Methods and Materials ...... 10-202 Snake River ...... 10-203 Discussion of Critical Questions ...... 10-204 References ...... 10-208

Chapter 11 Monitoring Plan...... 11-209 Introduction ...... 11-209 Filling the Data Gaps ...... 11-209 Historic ...... 11-212 Channel Habitat Type ...... 11-213 Hydrology ...... 11-213 Riparian and Wetlands ...... 11-214 Sediment Sources ...... 11-215 Water Quality ...... 11-216 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 11-217 Conclusions ...... 11-218 Planned Actions ...... 11-219 Future Needs ...... 11-219 References ...... 11-220 Appendix 1.1 ...... 221 Appendix 1.2 ...... 223 Appendix 4.1 ...... 233 Appendix 4.2 ...... 257 Appendix 5 ...... 268 Appendix 6 ...... 272 Appendix 7 ...... 296 Appendix 8 ...... 306

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figures

Figure 1-1 Project location map...... 1-15

Figure 1-2 Land ownership map...... 1-22

Figure 4-1 Mean Daily Discharge Graph, Snake River at Weiser ID, Water Year 2011...... 4-84

Figure 4-2 Mean Daily Discharge Graph, Pine Creek nr Oxbow, OR, Water Year 1968...... 4-85

Figure 4-3 Photo of Forest Cover Mosaic in Dry Fork of Connor Creek...... 4-93

Figure 4-4 Photo of harvested area in upper Connor Creek with final crown cover less than 30 percent...... 4-97

Figure 4-5 Photo of 2001 wildfire area around Fish Lake in Upper Lake Fork Creek with final crown cover less than 10 percent in most areas...... 4-98

Figure 4-6 Typical Roadway Cross-section Diagram (USDOT 2012)...... 4-103

Figure 6-1 Map showing the location of the Holbrook Spur Lane Bridge destroyed by the 2010 flood on Pine Creek ...... 6-167

Figure 6-2 Map showing Pine Creek and the Holbrook Spur Lane Bridge in 2009 prior to the 2010 flood. Note the riparian vegetation on the east bank of the stream north of the bridge. 6-168

Figure 6-3 Map showing the Holbrook Spur Lane crossing after the 2010 flood destroyed the bridge...... 6-168

Figure 6-4 This map shows the 1923 water right decree map superimposed over the 2011 aerial photograph. The meander bend shown in the 1923 map no longer exists and the channel is now straight...... 6-169

Figure 9-1 Distribution of bull trout...... 9-195

Figure 9-2 Distribution of white sturgeon...... 9-196

Photos

Photo 2-1 Oxbow of Snake River looking north, circa 1950. The town of Copperfield was at bottom left where Pine Creek runs into Snake River...... 2-24

vii

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 2-2 Homestead circa 1910 photo from the Baker County Library, Baker City, OR...... 2-30

Photo 2-3 Sturgeon Fishing near Home, Oregon. Photo from the Baker County Library, Baker City, OR...... 2-31

Photo 2-4 Beaver dam in Baker County; photo from S.Fouty...... 2-33

Photo 2-5 Foster Gulch Fire near the confluence of Pine Creek and North Pine Creek...... 2-34

Photo 2-6 Boulder Creek Placer circa 1913. Placer mining at the confluence of Boulder Creek and Pine Creek...... 2-40

Photo 5-1 Morgan Creek with grazing with no understory vegetation. This photo illustrates the Continental zone foothills and melange ecoregions...... 5-141

Photo 5-2 The photo on the left is looking upstream at Morgan Creek. The stream is fenced and has a dense native vegetation cover...... 5-142

Photo 5-3 Pine Creek with fencing on one bank that is vegetated and no fencing on the other bank...... 5-144

Photo 6-1 Gully formed on Morgan Creek...... 6-160

Photo 6-2 Conner Creek a tributary of the Snake River located in the Connor Creek Mining District. The increased bed load is likely due to placer mining...... 6-164

Photo 6-3 Ballard Creek after the 1997 flood at its confluence with the Snake River...... 6-165

Photo 6-4 Debris in the channel of Ballard Creek after the 1997 flood...... 6-165

Photo 6-5 Stream side grazing contributes to erosion problems in Pine Valley...... 6-166

Photo 6-6 Pine Creek at the upper end of Pine Valley at Holbrook Spur Lane...... 6-169

Tables

Table 2-1 Historical Land Use Patterns and Trends...... 2-47

Table 3-1 Summary of map layers used to determine CHT...... 3-52

Table 3-2 Channel gradient classes...... 3-53

Table 3-3 Channel confinement classes...... 3-53

viii

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 3-4 CHT classifications table taken from the Manual shows the CHT classification system...... 3-54

Table 3-5 Oregon Department of Forestry (2012) stream size classification criteria...... 3-55

Table 3-6 Table from the Manual summarizing the characteristics of CHTs with low, moderate, and high sensitivity...... 3-56

Table 3-7 Six HUC 6s contain only CHTs rated as having low sensitivity...... 3-57

Table 3-8 Eight HUC 6s have CHTs rated as low and moderate sensitivity to change...... 3-58

Table 3-9 Thirteen HUC 6 subwatersheds that contain CHTs rated as sensitive...... 3-61

Table 4-1 Interagency Watershed Classification System...... 4-65

Table 4-2 Watershed codes and names...... 4-65

Table 4-3 Subwatershed codes and names...... 4-66

Table 4-4 Sunny days for Halfway and Hines, Oregon ...... 4-68

Table 4-5 Percent mean monthly evaporation from free water surfaces ...... 4-69

Table 4-6 Summary of GIS map layers used in the hydrology chapter...... 4-75

Table 4-7 General Watershed Characteristics of HUC6 Watersheds...... 4-77

Table 4-8 Percent land cover in the assessment area...... 4-78

Table 4-9 Percent cover of the five major land cover types by subwatershed (>1% cover). Numbers highlighted in red include the Hells Canyon Complex reservoirs...... 4-79

Table 4-10 Stream gages within or near the assessment area...... 4-80

Table 4-11 Instantaneous Annual Peak Flow and Low Flow (1990-2011) at Seven Idaho Power Company Gages ...... 4-83

Table 4-12 Magnitude and Probability of Instantaneous Peak flow...... 4-86

Table 4-13 Percent of Bankfull Calculations for Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Natural Stream Flow for Pine Creek ...... 4-86

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-14 Percent forest cover by subwatershed...... 4-93

Table 4-15 Historic crown closure and dominant hydrologic processes by Ecoregion IV...... 4-94

Table 4-16 Risk of peak flow enhancement from forest management and wildfire by subwatershed...... 4-96

Table 4-17 Summary of agricultural land and rangeland runoff analysis...... 4-100

Table 4-18 Range of natural ground cover and canopy cover for rangelands...... 4-101

Table 4-19 Relative potential risk for peak flow enhancement from rangelands...... 4-102

Table 4-20 Percent of subwatershed in roads...... 4-103

Table 4-21 Higher road density HUC7s ...... 4-104

Table 4-22 Percent impervious surface by subwatershed...... 4-105

Table 4-23 Percent impervious surface by drainage...... 4-106

Table 4-24 In stream and minimum flow water rights ...... 4-110

Table 4-25 Idaho Power Company dams and reservoirs...... 4-111

Table 4-26 Irrigation reservoirs and other large reservoirs...... 4-112

Table 4-27 Total storage for large reservoirs by subwatershed...... 4-114

Table 4-28 Summary of large ground-water rights by subwatershed...... 4-114

Table 4-29 Inter-basin transfers of water...... 4-115

Table 4-30 Estimated evaporation rate from water bodies by elevation...... 4-116

Table 4-31 Estimated annual evaporation from Idaho Power Company reservoirs...... 4-116

Table 4-32 Summary of consumptive water use by HUC6 watershed...... 4-117

Table 4-33 WAB Months With Negative Water Availability Numbers...... 4-118

Table 4-34 WAB months with negative water availability numbers...... 4-119

Table 4-35 Potentially abandoned water uses...... 4-120

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 5-1 Summary of the map layers used to determine the riparian areas and wetland areas. .. 5- 133

Table 5-2 Biophysical Environments (PCWA 1998)...... 5-135

Table 5-3 Level IV Ecoregions in the Brownlee Subbasin (EPA 2012)...... 5-138

Table 5-4 The 2011 Baker County noxious weeds and "watch list"...... 5-145

Table 6-1 Current and expected sediment sources...... 6-154

Table 6-2 Summary of GIS data sources...... 6-156

Table 6-3 Assessment area summary of road length by proximity to a stream and steep slopes. . 6- 159

Table 6-4 Summary of mining and prospect in the watershed assessment area...... 6-162

Table 7-1 Summary of GIS data sources and map layers...... 7-173

Table 7-2 Channel modifications mapped using GIS...... 7-175

Table 8-1 Oregon DEQ table of Designated Beneficial Uses for the Powder and Burnt River Basins (source: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041tblsfigs.htm August 2005)...... 8-177

Table 8-2 GIS data sets use in chapter 8...... 8-178

Table 8-3 DEQ status code for streams in water quality data base (DEQ 2012)...... 8-179

Table 8-4 List of 303d streams in DEQ’s 2010 report to the EPA (DEQ 2012)...... 8-179

Table 8-5 Streams included in the DEQ’s data base due to temperature concerns...... 8-181

Table 8-6 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about dissolved oxygen (DEQ 2010)...... 8-184

Table 8-7 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about toxic substances (DEQ 2010)...... 8-186

Table 8-8 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about infectious organisms (DEQ 2010)...... 8-186

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-9 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about the biocriteria (DEQ 2010)...... 8-187

Table 8-10 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about habitat modifications (DEQ 2010)...... 8-187

Table 8-11 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about flow modification (DEQ 2010)...... 8-188

Table 8-12 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about sedimentation (DEQ 2010)...... 8-189

Table 8-13 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about pH (DEQ 2010)...... 8-190

Table 8-14 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about miscellaneous pollutants (DEQ 2012)...... 8-190

Table 9-1 Summary of GIS data sources...... 9-197

Table 10-1 Summary of GIS data sources and map layers...... 10-203

Table 10-2 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment...... 10-204

Table 11-1 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment...... 11-210

Tables in Appendix

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC...... 223

Table A4. 1 HUC7 Watershed codes and names, cross-referenced to HUC6s...... 233

Table A4. 2 OWRD Water Availability Basin (WAB) IDs and names by HUC7...... 237

Table A4. 3 Highest annual peak flows for five gages within and near Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment Area...... 239

Table A4. 4 General watershed characteristics for OWRD water availability basins...... 243

Table A4. 5 Larger ground-water rights in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin (> or = 0.02 cfs)...... 246

xii

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 6 Consumptive Water Use Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins ...... 249

Table A4. 7 Modeled Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins...... 251

Table A4. 8 Water Availability Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins...... 254

Table A5. 1 Wetland summary by HUC 6 watershed...... 268

Table A6. 1 Road summary by HUC 6...... 272

Table A6. 2 Summary of roads on slopes exceeding 50%...... 275

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2...... 277

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1...... 284

Table A7. 1 Summary of channel modifications. Map number locations are shown on map 7.1...... 296 Table A7. 2 Stream Channels impacted by mining. Features are shown on map 7.1 ...... 303

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1...... 306

Table A8. 2 BLM temperature data. Station locations are shown on map 8.1 ...... 312

xiii

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Large maps Map 3.1 Channel Habitat Type map. Map 4.1 Map of Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) boundaries. Map 4.2 Map of Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 7 watershed boundaries. Map 4.3 Water Availability Basins (Oregon Water Resources Department). Map 5.1 Shade streams and level IV Ecoregion. Map 5.2 Wetlands and hydric soils. Map 6.1 Geology, landslide and mine land map. Map 6.2 Road issues, culverts, bridges and stream-road intersect points. Map 6.3 Location of gullies in the subbasin. Map 6.4 Grazing areas, steep slopes and erodible soils. Map 6.5 Fire map with recent fires, and areas having highly erodible soils and steep slopes. Map 7.1 Channel modification map. Map 7.2 Pine Valley. Original Government Land Office survey maps from 1873 through 1882 overlain on the 2010 aerial photograph. Map 7.3 Map of Pine Valley Water right decree maps from the 1920s overlain on the 2010 aerial photograph. Map 7.4 Map showing the results of the surface-water point of diversion study complete by the PBWC. Map 8.1 Water quality impaired streams, 303(d) listed streams and water temperature stations. Map 9.1 Distribution of redband and brook trout, and fish passage barriers. Map 10.1 Map showing potential restoration areas based on CHT sensitivity and low shade.

xiv

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Executive Summary

Purpose

The purpose of a watershed assessment is to provide information for stakeholders to develop an action plan. Action plans focus on watershed improvement needs.

This watershed assessment resulted in two documents: the Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment and a supporting document, the Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report (River Design Group 2012). The Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report provided site-specific information, identified problems and suggested solutions along the Valley Reach of Pine Creek.

Furthermore, the Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment and the Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report were used to develop the Pine Creek Stewardship Guide (PBWC 2012). This guide will be used to help landowners develop restoration projects that will improve conditions along streams in the Pine Creek Watershed.

Council Goals and Involvement

The Powder Basin Watershed Council is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization committed to ensuring retention, restoration, and enhancement of watershed health within the Powder Basin. The goal of the Council with this assessment is to assist local stakeholders in developing action plans in the three geographical areas (the Pine Creek Watersheds, the Snake River Canyon Watersheds, and the Southern Foothills Watersheds) of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. The Council will help any interested persons evaluate and prioritize the watershed health issues, develop action plans, and implement projects.

The stakeholders in the Pine Creek Watershed have prioritized issues and, with the assistance of the Council, are implementing restoration projects. A long-term action plan that addresses all the issues and coordinate projects for the entire Pine Creek Watershed will be developed by the stakeholders with the assistance of the Council.

The Powder Basin Watershed Council will recruit and assist stakeholders in the other two areas in developing restoration projects and writing action plans for projects in their watersheds. This assessment will provide the background information for the action plans. The Monitoring Plan for the subbasin included in this assessment (Chapter 11) will provide additional information on the issues and guide action-plan development.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Background

The need for this assessment began in 2006 when high water damaged stream banks and threatened the City of Halfway’s sewage lagoons. The Baker County Commissioners asked the Powder Basin Watershed Council to “take the lead” in finding a solution to the flooding problems in Pine Valley. The Council formed a work group and developed a work plan in 2007. The work group held public meetings to define the issues and met with agency representatives to develop a long-term management plan.

The agency representatives advised the work group that more information was needed before an effective plan could be written. In 2007 and 2008, the Council submitted grant applications to OWEB, and organized and facilitated an issues-identification meeting in Halfway. The large snowpack in the winter of 2007-2008 again threatened flooding in the subbasin. In response, the work group organized a public meeting and wrote a Flood Response Plan. Congress authorized the US Army Corp of Engineers (COE) to spend $100,000 on a sediment transport study in Pine Valley. The Council partnered with the COE and with Idaho Power Company (IPC) to coordinate data collection on Pine Creek. The work group sponsored two OWEB small grants in 2009 for bank stabilization projects upstream of the City of Halfway for outreach and education. The COE completed a LIDAR flight of Pine Valley in 2008 and IPC began installing gaging stations in the Pine Creek watershed.

The Council applied for and received two OWEB grants in October 2008. Project # 209-5029 was for an assessment of watershed conditions in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. Project # 209-5028 was for technical assistance in project planning for River Miles 14 to 27 of Pine Creek (Halfway area). The Council contracted with Demeter Design in 2008 to accomplish both projects.

Severe flooding occurred during June, 2010. This negated the field work that had been completed by Demeter Design in Pine Creek during April, 2010. Another OWEB technical assistance grant (#210-5059) was received that fall for a resurvey of Pine Creek. Partnership with Idaho Power Company resulted in the inclusion of a Point Of Diversion inventory for the Pine Creek watershed in this project grant. Demeter Design delivered and was paid for a first draft of the Brownlee Reservoir Assessment including the resurvey data early in 2011. The contract with Demeter Design was terminated by mutual agreement in September, 2011.

The Council then contracted with River Design Group (RDG) for analysis and completion of the project planning for Pine Creek. RDG delivered the Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report in January of 2012 (River Design Group 2012). The Council used the Pine Creek report to write grant applications to OWEB for three demonstration projects on Pine Creek in 2012; two of

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment these projects were funded. A citizen group was recruited and organized to help develop a Pine Creek Watershed Management Guide to be used for project planning in the watershed.

The Council contracted with Nancy Rorick Consulting for completion of the Brownlee Reservoir Assessment in June, 2012. The POD survey portion of grant #210-5059 was completed in September, 2012 by Council staff. The final draft of the Brownlee Reservoir Assessment was delivered and approved on December 5, 2012. The final draft of the Pine Creek Watershed Management Guide was completed by Council staff December, 2012.

The Council presented the final Draft of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment at two meetings, one in Huntington on November 30, 2012, and the other in Halfway on December 7, 2012. At these meetings, the Council gathered public comments on the draft assessment and identified new issues of concern.

Issues

In order to focus the analysis, the work group identified five primary issues of concern within the study area: Hydrologic Function and Water Availability, Road-Water Interactions, Sedimentation and Erosion, Changes in Plant and Animal Communities, and Land Use Impacts. Many more specific issues about the watershed are detailed in Appendix 1.1. All of the issues in Table A1.1 are categorized into the five general areas. In order to find information about a specific issue, please refer to the chapters listed in the following discussion.

Hydrologic Function and Water Availability

A discussion of these issues can be found in Chapter 4. The discussion is divided into Hydrology and Water Use.

Hydrology

Research at Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed found that the transient snow zone has risen about 1000 feet over the 45-year period from 1962 to 2006. The onset of snowmelt peak flow and summer low flow occur about one month earlier.

High elevation rangelands in the Pine Creek drainage have higher and more frequent peak flows due to below-site-potential ground cover, increased channel incision, and enlarged the drainage network. Flooding of portions of Pine Creek floodplain in Pine Valley is exacerbated by high sediment load from Boulder Creek and Upper Pine Creek. In the Pine Creek drainage, rain- generated and rain-on-snow-generated peak flows often occur at different times during the same storm, or at the same time at different elevations.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Water Use

Evaporation from the three Snake River reservoirs is up to 66,000 acre-feet/year.

A Point of Diversion survey was completed for the Pine Creek Watershed. Complete water diversion information for all points of diversion (amount, months, measurement device and control structure) is not available for the entire Brownlee subbasin.

Road-Water Interactions

A discussion of the issues can be found in Chapters 4 and 6. Road density and the amount of impervious surfaces in each watershed are generally low with little effect on peak flow enhancement.

Roads and culverts are major sediment sources. A complete inventory of road/stream crossings is needed.

Evaluation of bridges in the Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report shows that most bridges in Pine Valley are undersized for peak flows (River Design Group 2012).

Sedimentation and Erosion

A discussion of the issues can be found in Chapter 6. The assessment identified roads and culverts, mining, widespread gully formation, fire (the 2006 Twin Lakes fire increased downstream deposition), and landslides as major sediment sources.

Specifically:

 Riparian conditions in Pine Valley: this area has been affected by land-use activities since the late 1800s (grazing, farming, mining and timber production) and is an important area for fisheries.

 Gully Formation: gullying is extensive throughout the watershed so implementing gully control measures and vegetation restoration of key streams is needed to improve the watershed.

 Mining: there are mined lands that have not been reclaimed and are contributing to stream sediment load. Mining is an important sediment source in Connor and Pine Creeks.  Roads and culverts: properly sized culverts can reduce sediment and erosion issues. The PBWC will continue to map and evaluate the culverts. Roads are an ongoing issue that

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

will be addressed by county and state road departments and in part by the federal land- management agencies.

Future sediment sources include the existing road network, fire, gully formation and landslides. Future impacts due to mining activity are dependent on fluctuations in commodity prices.

Changes in Plant and Animal Communities

Plant Communities

Discussions of vegetation issues are found in Chapters 2, 4, and 8; and vegetation types are detailed in Table 5.2. Historically, vegetation was predominantly comprised of dry brush and grasses in the lowlands, and conifers with under-story shrubs and grasses in the uplands. Before 1800, roughly 6% of the subbasin consisted of riparian hardwoods, open meadows, and water.

The two plant associations that exist along streams are Douglas hawthorn with snowberry or Douglas hawthorn with cow parsnip. Usually aspen and hawthorn alternate; aspen growing through the hawthorn canopy and shading it out. Some streams have black cottonwood/water hemlock or white alder (sometimes with black cottonwood) which replace the hawthorn/cow parsnip association. Little remains of these forest types (Franklin and Dryness 1988).

Livestock grazing has led to the reduction or near extirpation of many native grasses and herbs from the Southern Foothills and along the Snake River benches (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Sparse grass cover, severe erosion, and intense rodent activity are common in shallow soils on National Forest land around Pine Valley. These changes have accelerated erosion, adversely affecting riparian areas.

Aspen stands have declined substantially within the subbasin as a result of fire suppression, competition with conifers, and browsing by both livestock and wildlife (Nowak 2004). Heavy grazing coupled with stream-side vegetation removal has also caused a shift in the native riparian stands in the lowlands of Pine Valley. The removal of over-story alder and cottonwood and subsequent lack of regeneration of those species has led either to homogeneous stands of shade intolerant hawthorn or stream banks without woody vegetation.

Riparian areas in the subbasin with less than 40% shade are susceptible to nonnative plant invasion, particularly when cattle are present: cattle trample the natives providing an opportunity for nonnatives to establish in the wet, compacted soils.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Animal Communities

Fish habitat within the study area is largely degraded from historical conditions. Riparian vegetation is low in density and width, and of poor quality. Invasive plant species are present.

Until 1967, when the Hells Canyon Complex of dams blocked fish passage, Chinook salmon, steelhead and lamprey migrated up the Snake River and into the side streams, particularly the Pine Creek Watershed. Riparian vegetation was widespread along these streams, and beaver ponds provided deep-water fish habitat. The near extirpation of beaver in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin assessment area has led to loss of riparian and fish habitat, and changes in stream dynamics.

The Pine Valley watershed has the most riparian diversity and fish habitat opportunity in the study area. Pine Creek and its tributaries are considered critical habitat for bull trout. Their decline has been attributed to freshwater habitat reduction, passage barriers and poor water quality.

Land Use Impacts

Chapters 2, 5, and 6 contain information on land use impacts. Since 1860, the streams have changed significantly, primarily due to livestock grazing, farming, and mining of gold and aggregate minerals.

The analyst mapped 18 stream reaches impacted by mining. The length of the impacted reaches ranged from 125 to 5,608 feet. Although mining has declined, it has left a legacy of dikes and tailings that confine stream channels. Water quality is affected by erosion of disturbed soils, pollutants, and unstable stream banks.

The Pine Creek Watershed has seen large-scale changes through stream channelization and removal of trees and shrubs in floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands on private land. Historic maps show that the major stream channels in Pine Valley have been straightened. Smaller tributaries have been diverted into ditches or obliterated. This has reduced the capacity of the stream system to carry high flows through the system. Placer mining along Pine Creek has reduced meanders and increased sediment. Increased residential development and associated infrastructure next to streams has led to further confinement of streambeds in Pine Valley. Damaging floods have increased as a result, thereby increasing bank erosion and loss of infrastructure (bridges and roads). Irrigation withdrawal and channelization of streams have reduced aquatic habitat for fish and other animals.

The Southern Foothills portion of the assessment area including Birch Creek has been changed by intense livestock grazing pressure and the removal of beaver. Livestock grazing has changed

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment the amount and diversity of riparian vegetation. The absence of beaver dams which store water has led to lowered water tables and decreased stream sinuosity. There is less riparian-wetland- floodplain habitat to support fish and other aquatic species.

The single largest land-use change was dam construction along the Snake River Canyon, which blocked fish passage for anadromous species. This has decreased habitat for native fish such as bull trout and white sturgeon and increased habitat for nonnative fish such as bass and carp. The small side streams in the Snake River Canyon have seen little change except for Conner Creek and Homestead Creek where mining has channelized the stream and reduced riparian habitat; and Morgan Creek, where gullies are likely caused by grazing impacts.

Issues Identified During the Comment Period

 High levels of nitrates have been found in drinking water wells in the Southern Foothills area.

o The Council will work with affected stakeholders to address this issue as part of an Action Plan for this area.

 Fishing in the three Snake River reservoirs contributes to the local economy of Huntington and Halfway/Richland. Water-level fluctuations have caused fish die offs and reduction in income from tourism in these communities.

o This issue is related to the management of the regional water storage system. The Council can provide a forum for discussion of the issue but resolution may be beyond the scope of a local Action Plan.

Information Needs, Key Findings and Recommendations

Each chapter in this assessment includes a discussion of the analysis results and recommendations for addressing the questions that guided the analysis. Chapter 10 (Watershed Condition Evaluation) summarizes the key findings and data gaps, establishes priorities for action, and identifies key areas for habitat protection and restoration. Table 10.1 is a compilation of all the information in the assessment displayed by watershed. The categories in Table 10.1 are: sensitivity to change, riparian character, sediment movement potential, key issues by watershed, data gaps, restoration potential, and public comments about the draft assessment.

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter 11) has a list of information needs that were identified in the assessment and a strategy to gather the information. Priority Ecological Systems, Rare or At-

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Risk Plant Communities, and Priority Species as determined by OWEB were not inventoried as part of this assessment, but some information, such as details about bull trout, was included in the assessment. Application of these priorities to action planning is an information need.

Next Step – Action Plan

Action Plans are the next step in improving the watersheds in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. Action Plans are essential to focus limited resources on the most effective methods to improve watershed health. Information provided by OWEB is used to guide Action Plan development and set priorities. OWEB’s Stream Flow, Ecological System, Plant Community, and Animal/Plant Species restoration priorities for the Watershed Assessment Area are detailed in a white paper located in the Council's files of the Brownlee Reservoir Assessment project. This information is also posted on the OWEB website in two documents; OWEB 2004, Basin Ecological Priorities and OWEB 2003, Stream Flow Restoration Priorities.

The action plans will include: a description of the issues that have been prioritized by the stakeholders in the watershed; the information needs; a process to prioritize work; short- and long-term strategies; and action items to accomplish these strategies. Public involvement that includes a collaborative process is the most important part of developing an action plan. Unless a strong base, including landowners, municipal, county, and state government, state and federal agencies and other stakeholders is present to support the actions, it will be difficult to retain, restore, and enhance the health of the watersheds.

Pine Creek Watershed

The Pine Creek watershed has already established a local work group; and a great deal of current information (Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report) has been compiled (River Design Group 2012). Two projects that will test the effectiveness of restoration strategies are being implemented. The Council will provide support to the Pine Creek work group to develop both short- and long-term strategies working with Baker County, the City of Halfway and local stakeholders. Project implementation, monitoring, outreach, and education in the watershed will be guided by the work group and integrated into the Council's program of work.

Southern Foothills

The Council will undertake an education and outreach program in Huntington and the Ontario areas to recruit a group to develop an action plans for these watersheds. Benson and Birch Creeks have opportunities for restoration. Nitrate contamination is a new issue that will be investigated by the Council.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Snake River Canyon

Most streams along the canyon are steep but some opportunities exist for restoration in Connor Creek and along the reservoirs where small streams enter. The Council will undertake an education and outreach program in Huntington, Oxbow, Richland, and with landowners along the reservoirs and side tributaries (such as Fox Creek and Connor Creek) to recruit a group to develop action plans for these watersheds.

Mining Legacy

The Council has begun a process to work with the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and private landowners to identify projects to restore mined areas. The Council will work to compile an inventory of mining impacts.

Workgroup

Bruce Lindley Pine Valley Landowner, Eagle Valley SWCD Director

Tim Bailey District Fish Biologist, Northeast Region, ODFW

Tim Bliss Hydrologist, PBWC Chairman

Jim Young Natural Resource Specialist, PBWC Vice Chairman

Vicki Wares Coordinator, PBWC

Contributors

Johanna Doty Sedell Executive Director, PBWC

Ray Perkins Fish Biologist, Ontario Field Office, Southeast Region, ODFW

Nick Myatt ODFW Wildlife Biologist, Baker Field Office, Northeast Region, ODFW

Bill Burley Huntington, OR resident

Jeff Connor Engineering Leader-River Engineering, Idaho Power Company

Pete Vidmar Engineer, Water Management Department, Idaho Power Company

Jesse Nyamik Biologist, Environmental Affairs, Idaho Power Company

Mark Kolowith Engineer, Water Management Department, Idaho Power Company

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Steve Brink Fisheries Biologist, Idaho Power Company

Suzanne Fouty Hydrologist, US Forest Service, Whitman Ranger District

Denine Schmitz Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District

Rick Lusk Region 8 (Baker County) Watermaster

Arnie Grammon Baker County Weedmaster

Ken Helgerson Baker County Roadmaster

Ron Jacobs Region 9 (Malheur County) Watermaster

Gary Page Malheur County Weedmaster

Alan Schnetzky Wallowa County Weedmaster

Danny Marks Watershed Scientist, Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed

Eric Quaempts Director, Department of Natural Resources, CTUIR

Joel Tannenhoiz Boise Weather Forecast Office, National Weather Service

Dale Taylor Curator, City of Halfway Museum

Greg Graham Chief, Planning Branch, US Army Corp of Engineers

Tracy Schwarz Hydraulic Engineer, US Army Corp of Engineers

Jeff Stidman Emergency Branch Management, US Army Corp of Engineers

References

Franklin, Jerry F. and Dyrness, C.T., 1988, Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

OWEB. 2004. Basin Ecological Priorities. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon. September 14, 2004. Accessed November 28, 2012 at http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/GRANTS/pages/acquisition_grants.aspx#acquisition_priorities .

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

OWEB. 2003. Stream Flow Restoration Priorities. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon. February 2003. Accessed November 28, 2012 through map at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/mgmt_opsw.aspx

River Design Group, 2012, Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report, prepared for the Powder Basin Watershed Council.

Powder Basin Watershed Council, 2012, Pine Creek Stewardship Guide.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Preface

What is "Watershed Assessment"? A watershed assessment is a process for evaluating how well a watershed is working (WPN 1999). This process includes steps for identifying issues, examining the history of the watershed, describing its features, and evaluating various resources within the watershed. Why conduct a watershed assessment? Watershed assessments help us:

 identify features and processes important to fish habitat and water quality;  determine how natural processes are influencing those resources;  understand how human activities are affecting fish habitat and water quality; and  evalu ate the cumulative effects of land management practices over time.

The assessment helps us determine which features and processes in the watershed are working well and which are not. It will aid us in developing action plans and monitoring strategies for protecting and improving fish habitat and water quality.

Every watershed is different with its own characteristic geology, climate, topography, surrounding land use, and natural disturbances (floods and fires). To help identify these large- scale characteristics, the assessment incorporates the use of ecoregions, landscapes that share fundamental biophysical characteristics. Although the assessment begins by looking at characteristics and processes of the entire watershed, it bridges the gap to specific conditions within portions of individual streams by stratifying the stream network into Channel Habitat Types (CHTs). The CHTs are determined by the slope of the channel bottom (from gentle to steep), and the width of its valley (from wide to narrow). This helps determine which portions of the stream network have high potential for fish production and which are sensitive to disturbance. This information, along with knowledge of the areas currently used by fish, leads to identifying the following:

 areas with the highest potential for improvement;  high-priority areas for restoration; and  the types of improvement actions that will be most effective.

Streams and their channels are the result not only of surrounding landform, geology, and climate, but of all upslope and in-stream influences as well. The assessment is directed at broad-scale patterns. It uses aspects of water quality and fish habitat as indicators of watershed health. To identify potential problems, the assessment relies on existing data, local knowledge of land managers, and field surveys. This approach reveals which natural and human-altered processes are influencing a watershed’s ability to produce cold, clear water that support native fish populations. That’s what this watershed assessment does; it identifies potential problems that need further investigation.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 1 Introduction

The Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Watershed Assessment was completed for the Powder Basin Watershed Council following the instructions laid out in the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's Oregon Watershed Enhancement Manual (WPN 1999). Questions in the Manual used to guide the assessment are included at the beginning of each chapter.

We use the watershed boundaries established by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS 2012). (See Chapter 4 on hydrology for an explanation of watershed hydrologic unit codes or HUCs.) The OWEB manual focuses on assessments of “5th field” watersheds, which are usually between 40,000 and 120,000 acres. For the purposes of this assessment, we expanded the area to the subbasin or “4th field” level, a much larger area of more than 800,000 acres. The Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin has three distinct geographical areas: the Pine Creek Watersheds, the Snake River Canyon Watersheds, and the Southern Foothills Watersheds. Because the subbasin is such a large area, the results of this assessment are summarized for these three areas rather than by individual stream.

The Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin is a unique landform of numerous unconnected streams flowing directly into the Snake River, the boundary between the states of Idaho and Oregon. Even though the standard assessment procedures are not usually valid for evaluating large river conditions, assessing the portion of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin located in Oregon allows us to put together compatible data from adjacent watersheds within an ecoregion. Ecoregions are areas with similar ecosystems that have been mapped by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 2012). Goals for the assessment include:

 the characterization of current conditions within the Brownlee Subbasin;  identification of areas for future restoration within the study area;  identification of data needs; and  clear "next-steps" to fill those data gaps.

The Powder Basin Watershed Council represents a diverse group of stakeholders in the watershed. A technical advisory committee (work group) was formed by members of the watershed council to guide the assessment. Members of the work group included representatives with backgrounds in fisheries management, forest management, agriculture, irrigation, soil and water conservation, hydrology, public outreach, and journalism.

An outreach plan was developed during the course of this assessment. The components of this plan are: collaborating with the local newspapers to garner public support; partnering with the

1-13

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment multiple land management agencies such as the United States Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and the Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL); partnering with four Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Idaho Power Company (IPC) and the City of Halfway; and holding public outreach meetings to present the completed watershed assessment.

The study area for this assessment was defined as the Oregon side of the Brownlee 4th field HUC, from Hells Canyon Dam upstream to the average inflow elevation of Brownlee Reservoir located above Darrows Islands at Wheel Gulch. The land area in Oregon east of longitude 117.140178, latitude 44.258726 north was excluded from this assessment. Land use one mile east of this point is characterized by intensive specialty-crop irrigated agriculture, and is significantly different from land use within the study area. The portion of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin located in the State of Idaho, about 463,721 acres, was excluded from study area in order to reduce the cost to the State of Oregon. The Powder Basin Watershed Council recognizes that watersheds do not end at political boundaries and will seek future partnerships with the stakeholders within the Idaho portion of the Brownlee Subbasin. The final assessment area is 369,983 acres in size (figure 1-1). The majority of the study area is within the Blue Mountains ecoregion (EPA level III); a small portion of the southern study area is within the Snake River Plain ecoregion. See Table 5.3 in Chapter 5 for descriptions of the ecoregions.

1-14

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 1-1 Project location map.

1-15

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Background and Goals

The Powder Basin Watershed Council is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization committed to ensuring retention, restoration, and enhancement of watershed health within the Powder Basin, also known as the Middle Snake-Powder Basin. Recognizing that local prosperity is dependent upon the continuing availability of high quality water, the PBWC identified the need to:

 analyze watershed conditions;  develop short- and long-range plans and projects that protect and/or improve watershed conditions;  inform the community about watershed health;  garner public support through involvement in PBWC events and activities;  develop working partnerships based on mutual respect and trust; and  comply with legislative and legal requirements.

Several watershed condition assessments by different entities have been completed within the study area, such as the Idaho Power Company assessment for relicensing of its Hells Canyon Complex, USFS watershed analysis and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning area and project analysis, BLM NEPA planning area assessments, PWBC’s Pine Creek Watershed Assessment (Powder Basin Watershed Council 2000) and 2012 Pine Creek Reconnaissance Report (River Design Group 2012). This document contains synthesized data from multiple watershed assessments and reports completed within the study area between about 1960 and 2012.

Document Layout

The chapters in this assessment are laid out using the following format: introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion. All references and resources are listed at the end of each chapter. The discussion summarizes the goals of each chapter, and the results of the analysis include data gaps found as a result of the analytical process. The specific methods used are detailed in the section titled Materials and Methods. Some analytical methods were unnecessary for the region and were excluded; only those methods included in the assessment are documented. Some field data were collected in Pine Creek and Birch Creek as part of this assessment.

1-16

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Taxonomy and Terms

There are numerous ways to identify a watershed, the method used in this assessment is known as the Hydrologic Unit Code or HUC. HUCs were determined by United States Geological Survey and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) using elevation data (USGS 2012). They range from 1st fields which are large regions such as the Pacific Northwest to 6th fields which are small subwatersheds for a single creek. Smaller areas can be further delineated using standard methodologies; these areas are defined as 7th fields or catchments. This assessment delineated 7th fields using elevation maps and aerial photography. From this point, a ‘watershed’ is defined as a 5th field HUC; they range in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres.

The ecoregion classification is another way to identify a watershed (U.S. EPA 2012). Ecoregions are determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and were originally based on distinct sets of biophysical characteristics: geology, geomorphology, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. Level I contains 15 ecological regions in North America, Level II divides the continent into 52 regions, Level III, the continental United States, contains 104 regions, and so on.

Climate is generally defined as the long-term average weather conditions of a specific region. Climate encompasses average temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, and rainfall. Climate can also be reported using raw data, as was done in this report. Finally there are climate stations within the study area that were used for this assessment. Generally ecoregions utilize climate data and are more detailed than most climate classification systems.

Stakeholder Guiding Issues

Critical Questions that guide issue development:

1. What resource condition issues affecting local decision making in the watershed arise from state and federal laws? 2. What are the potential effects of land management activities on these conditions? 3. Are there additional aquatic-resource issues that have been identified at the local level? 4. How does one use this set of issues in conducting a watershed assessment?

Several salmonid species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) are present (bull trout) or historically occurred (salmon and steelhead) in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has listed the Brownlee Subbasin 4th field for multiple pollutants. Additionally, several tributaries were moved from the 303(d) list to the 304(b) list and are considered water quality limited. The largest tributary (Pine Creek) has been

1-17

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment placed on the 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen, temperature (bull trout spawning and rearing, salmonid rearing), flow modification (later placed on 304[b]; water quality limited), habitat modification, pH, toxics, alkalinity, ammonia, chloride, phosphate and phosphorus, and sedimentation. Refer to Chapter 8 for more detailed information regarding these listings.

Land use within the basin is varied and includes farming (orchards, gardens and vineyards); stock raising; forest management; mining (past and present, both placer and hard rock); hydropower production; and energy transmission, water storage and distribution for agricultural and human consumption; transportation systems such as railroads, interstate and local roads; town and country living (including wastewater management); and recreation (primarily boating, hunting and fishing). These uses all affect fish habitat and water quality.

Many issues have been identified as important by stakeholders within the watershed. A complete list of issue statements is in Appendix 1. Some of these issues have been discussed in detail in previously completed reports while others have not been assessed until now. In order to focus the analysis, the work group has identified five primary issues of concern within the study area:

 hydrologic function and water availability;  road-water interactions;  sedimentation and erosion;  changes in plant and animal communities; and  land use impacts.

These issues are analyzed and reported in this assessment following the guidelines set forth in the Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN 1999). Further detail regarding the five issues of concern can be found in the associated chapter Materials and Methods sections. A discussion of all the issue statements in Appendix 1 is included in the Executive Summary.

4th Field Subbasin General Description

The study area consists of 369,983 acres within the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. There are five 5th-field watersheds in the study area and seven 5th-field watersheds in the larger subbasin. Hog Creek and Wildhorse Creek watersheds do not contain any streams in Oregon and were excluded from this analysis.

Landforms and Topography

The study area is characterized by the deep Snake River canyon with associated tributaries flowing through the foothills, plateaus, and canyons of the surrounding mountain ranges. The

1-18

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment study area is in the foothills of the Blue and Wallowa Mountains on the eastern side of Baker County, Oregon. The Seven Devils Mountain range in Idaho defines the eastern side of the study area. The elevation ranges from 1,660 feet at Hells Canyon Dam to 9,555 feet at Red Mountain in the Eagle Cap Wilderness.

The current Snake River channel and its high terraces were formed 14,500 years ago when Red Rock Pass in southern Idaho on the north end of Lake Bonneville slumped away causing a 5,000,000 cubic-foot/second (cfs) flood down the Snake River. This unique landform along the Snake River Canyon has been submerged by the three reservoirs.

More specifically, the study area is characterized by cirques (small amphitheater-like basins); U-shaped; glacially formed valleys; steep canyons; jagged peaks; landslides; bare-rock cliffs; wetlands; mountain meadows; ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams; and the Snake River. Man-made structures include roads, mines, transmission lines, dams (irrigation and hydroelectric), hay fields, fences, and small- to medium-sized buildings.

The stream network, as mapped in the USGS National Hydrologic Dataset, is 2,055 miles long with the Pine Creek main stem accounting for 32 miles or 1.6% and the Snake River accounting for 92 miles or 4.5%. With regard to total stream flow, the Snake River constitutes the majority of the watershed. The streams that discharge directly to the Snake River are characterized by steep drainages and ephemeral or intermittent streams that only flow during rain storms or snow melt events. Pine Creek and Birch Creek are the two largest stream systems after the Snake River.

There are water diversions for 16 reservoirs providing water storage for irrigation: five irrigation storage reservoirs in the Birch Creek watershed, ten reservoirs in the Pine Creek watershed and one on Benson Creek (OWRD 2012). Additionally there are numerous push-up dams which do not require permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department if they are less than ten feet high. The impact of these dams on habitat is discussed in the Channel Modification (Chapter 7), the Fish Habitat (Chapter 9), and Hydrology (Chapter 4). There are a total of 22 dams on the Snake River including three dams (Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon) within the study area.

Geology

Roughly two thirds of the subbasin is comprised of resistant (volcanic) materials (65%), with sedimentary rocks comprising 31% and metamorphic lithologies comprising the remaining 4% (For a more detailed discussion of geology, including maps of geologic units, refer to Chapter 6, Sediment). Volcanic rocks are generally more resistant to erosion and less likely to contribute fine sediments to the stream system, which can choke developing fish eggs.

1-19

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Soils

Most soils in the study area have been mapped and classified according to soil taxonomy (NRCS 1999). Information about soils on private and public lands outside of the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest (WWNF) is available in two soil survey publications (NRCS 1980, NRCS 1997). Soils information for WWNF-managed lands is contained in an electronic database managed by the Forest Soil Scientist of the Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon.

Soils in the study area are diverse and are generally classified into seven of the 12 soil orders: Alfisols, Andisols, Aridisols, Entisols, Histosols, Inceptisols, and Mollisols. Alfisols have a light colored surface and well developed subsoil. Andisols have andic soil properties in at least 60% of the top 24 inches; this horizon is derived from Mount Mazama volcanic ash. Aridisols result from very low precipitation, and usually have well developed sub-soils and accumulations of calcium carbonate. Entisols are recent soils with weakly developed soil horizons. Histosols are organic soils. Inceptisols have well developed top soils and weakly developed sub-soils. Mollisols have dark-colored top soils and well developed sub-soils. Soils in these seven soil orders range in depth from four inches to over 60 inches, and have characteristics too numerous to discuss here. See Soil Taxonomy (NRCS 1999) for a detailed description of the soil orders, and see the soil survey reports for detailed description of individual soils. For a more detailed description regarding soil erosion refer to Chapter 6.

Climate

Climate in the basin is arid to semi-arid; moisture from the Pacific Ocean moves up the Columbia River valley (into which the Snake River flows). The study area receives some of the maritime influence from the proximity to the Columbia and the coast but more closely resembles the Great Basin with regards to temperature and precipitation patterns. The northern part of the study area receives much more precipitation, largely in the form of snow (50-60 inches), than the southern portion. Precipitation intensity (as measured by 24-hour maxima) is greatest between November and April (0.5-2 inches). Single 24-hour, 100-year events for the study area are between one and three inches.

Precipitation is highest in the winter and ranges from 25 to 40 inches, falling predominantly in the form of snow, with peak precipitation in the Wallowa Mountains of Upper Pine Creek nearing 40 inches. Summer rainstorms bring more precipitation in one event (e.g. cloudbursts) while snow can pile in drifts of nine feet or more over a season (especially in the higher elevations). Rain-on-snow events, snowmelt, ice jams, and cloudbursts are common causes of basin-wide flooding.

1-20

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Seasonal average air temperatures range from lows of 15 to 33 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 47 to 87 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. The highest recorded temperature peaked at 108 degrees Fahrenheit in August, 1961; the coldest recorded temperature was -34 degrees Fahrenheit in January, 1949. The warmest year (annual average) on record was 1998 with a monthly mean temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit.

Ownership and Land Use

Land use within the basin is varied and includes farming, ranching, grazing, forestry, orcharding, gardening, fishing, hunting, boating, mining, hydropower production and energy transmission, water storage and distribution, recreation, and urban, rural, railroad, interstate and local roads. Small portions of the Eagle Cap Wilderness and Hells Canyon Wilderness are in the study area. The study area is largely managed by the federal and state governments (USFS 135,985 acres, 37.3%; BLM 97,237 acres, 26.7%; FERC 5,553 acres, 1.5%; ODSL 4,672 acres, 1.3%) with the remainder of the lands under private ownership (121,357 acres, 33%).

1-21

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 1-2 Land ownership map.

1-22

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

References

National Resource Conservation Service, 1980, Soil Survey of the Wallowa Whitman National Forest, Oregon, available online: http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html

Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1997, Soil Survey of Baker County Area, Oregon, U.S. Department of Agricultural, available online: http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html

Natural Resource Conservation Service 1999, Soil Taxonomy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, available online: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy/

Oregon Department of Water Resouces, 2012, Statewide Water Rights Spatial Data with Metadata, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/maps/index.aspx#Water_Right_Data_GIS_Themes

Powder Basin Watershed Council, 2000, Pine Creek Watershed Assessment, Volume 1 of 2, Baker City, Or.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, Ecoregions of Oregon: Available online: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/or_eco.htm

River Design Group, 2012, Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report, prepared for the Powder Basin Watershed Council.

USGS, 2012, National Hydrologic Data Set, available online: http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html

WPN, 1999, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Developed for the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/docs/pubs/or_wsassess_manuals.aspx

1-23

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 2 Historic Conditions Assessment

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with a general understanding of the condition of the watershed before the arrival of Euro-American settlers. Information is also provided on settlement patterns and resource management through time.

In some cases, the condition of the watershed before European settlement is known from journals and personal accounts. Other information on pre-settlement conditions is derived from scientific research. The history of settlement and resource management is generally well documented. Historical photos and maps are provided when available. Biotic abundance and distribution, the physical environment, human uses and management of the land, and disturbance regimes are described. Current conditions are reported in a general way to provide contrast. Detailed current conditions are reported in other chapters.

The subbasin has three distinct geographical areas: the mountainous Pine Creek watersheds; the Snake River Canyon watersheds with short, steep streams flowing directly into the river; and the relatively flatter watersheds of the Southern Foothills such as Birch Creek.

Photo 2-1 Oxbow of Snake River looking north, circa 1950. The town of Copperfield was at bottom left where Pine Creek runs into Snake River. Homestead was at upper left where the river disappears to the north. From the collection of the Baker County Library, Baker City, Oregon.

These are the critical questions that guide this chapter of the Brownlee Subbasin Assessment.

2-24 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 What was the condition of the watershed at the time of Euro-American settlement?  What are the historical trends of land use and management?  What are the historical accounts of fish abundance and distribution?  What is the location and extent of historical disturbance and modifications?

Materials and Methods

Several resources were used for this chapter: previous assessments, historical texts and settlement records, personal accounts, and GIS data layers from government agencies. The reference section lists all resources used.

Historical Natural Environment

Climate – A detailed discussion of the current climate and long-term climate cycles may be found in Chapter 4. More recent dry and wet periods are revealed by burn scar/tree ring analysis done by Heyerdahl (2008).

Geology – The geology of the subbasin is described in Chapter 6 on sediment. A summary of that information is presented here.

Hydrology – Stream-flow rates and timing are described in Chapter 4. Historic stream locations for Pine Creek watershed were taken from the 1923 water rights decree map and the 1872 and 1915 cadastral survey maps.

Vegetation – Several data layers were utilized to determine the historical condition of vegetation in the Brownlee Subbasin. The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (2012) vegetative data layer provided information regarding the plant communities present prior to 1935. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management area analyses were used to determine historical riparian vegetation. The Natural Resource Conservation Service soil manuals (http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html) for Baker County were used to determine potential native vegetation by soil type. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington by Franklin and Dyrness was used for information on potential vegetation by forest and steppe zones in the assessment area.

Fish and Wildlife – The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (2012) species distribution layer was used to determine the species whose natural distribution would include the Brownlee Subbasin. The best available data for historical fish distribution was synthesized and reported in this chapter. The majority of analysis regarding fish usage can be found in Chapter 9 on fish. The Forest Service Handbook 553 Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests – the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington by Thomas (1979) was used to determine the most likely changes in vegetation due to fauna species change with an emphasis on beaver, ungulates, and predators. Personal recollections of USFS Rangers and local residents are included.

2-25 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Historical Disturbance Regimes

Fire – There are several data layers available from the BLM and USFS that were used for this analysis including fire history, location, and management regimes. Additionally, the reference text Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Fires by Agee (1993) was used to determine historical fire regimes based on location and historical plant communities. Disturbance regimes for the local area were determined using Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: A Plant Ecologist's Perspective on Ecosystem Processes and Biological Diversity by Johnson (1994). Sediment (Chapter 6) has detailed maps and references of recent fire history. Hydrology (Chapter 4) has a detailed analysis of wildfire relationship to peak flow. The BLM and USFS both provided the mapped boundaries of recent fires occurring since 1980 (map 6.5).

Flood – Local residents have provided information regarding flooding on Pine Creek. The history of the formation of the Snake River is repeated in this chapter.

Earthquake – Active faults were identified using maps compiled by DOGAMI. Chapter 6 includes detailed references.

Landslides and earthflows as mapped by DOGAMI are discussed in Chapter 6.

Historical Land Use and Trends by Humans (Including Modifications of the Environment)

Native American Use – The Oregon Historical Society has extensively documented the Native American use of the region based on historical texts from fur trappers, explorers, and settlers. The information available from the Oregon Historical Society was synthesized for the region. Accounts by early local settlers are included. Other resources which were also synthesized in this chapter include data available from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla and academic research. Additionally, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla were consulted and information from their website was consolidated in this chapter.

Euro-American Settlement – Information regarding historical mining was summarized from the Western Mining History Web site. Locations of specific historical mines are reported using information found in the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database. Agriculture and transportation uses were summarized from research done for Idaho Power Company, from records in the Baker Heritage Museum, and from regional sources. Water uses are derived from these historical records and from the 1930 Pine Creek Decree which finalized water rights in the Pine Creek Watershed. Timber harvest and fire suppression history are from USFS and BLM records. Finally, written accounts by local residents are used for site-specific information on mining, settlement patterns, and resource management over time.

2-26 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Results

Historical Natural Environment

Climate - Earth entered an ice age 2.6 million years ago. The climate of the assessment area changed with the glacial and interglacial cycles during this period. The present interglacial period (the Holocene) has lasted about 11,700 years. This interglacial period in the Brownlee Subbasin is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, relatively wetter winters. The climate is continental but is influenced by elevation, with severe winters and warm summers in the mountains while winters are mild and summers hot near the Snake River. The El Nino/La Nina cycle in the Pacific Ocean affects short-term weather patterns. Chapter 4 (Hydrology) provides more details about the area’s climate.

Geology - The geology of the Pine Creek Watershed includes an abundant supply of gravelly glacial sediments (see Chapter 6). The subbasin soils can be grouped into four categories: bottom-land soil, fan and terrace soils, foot-slope soils, and upland soils. Upland soils in the southern portion of the watershed developed from basic igneous rocks. Soils in the Wallowa Mountains originated from a mixture of acidic and basic igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks. Almost all soils on the alluvial outwash are well drained. About 2,500 acres of floodplain soils have poor drainage (Powder Basin Watershed Council 2000).

The Birch Creek watershed in the Southern Foothills has basalt capping sediments, volcanic ash and debris that were deposited in lakes and streams (Chapter 6). There was some uplift and faulting in the western portion of the watershed.

In the Snake River Canyon, steep canyon walls with short side streams were formed by tectonic uplift and stream erosion. Much of the Snake River Canyon was shaped by the Bonneville Flood about 14,500 years ago (Chapter 4).

Hydrology - Streams in the Brownlee Subbasin experience many high-flow (or peak-flow) and low-flow events during a single year. The timing of flows in the steep side streams of the Snake River Canyon and Birch Creek probably continue to follow historical patterns. Many streams located in agricultural areas, mining districts and transportation corridors have been channelized.

The streams flowing through the narrow canyons in the hills above Pine Valley typically occupy a single steep channel. These streams have high energy and likely transport very large rocks and gravel during high flows. When these streams reach Pine Valley or other lower-gradient areas they transition to a multichannel fan shape where two or more channels convey water and transport sediment (braided stream system) (River Design Group 2012).

Map 7.3, a 1923 map of the historical stream channels in Pine Valley overlain on an aerial photograph, shows that perennial streams have been lost or channelized. Of particular interest is

2-27 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment the location of Pine Creek in 1872 (map 7.2) compared with 1923 (map 7.2). The 1872 survey map shows three main channels coming together near the current location of the City of Halfway with numerous smaller channels draining the rest of the valley. Today, the three main streams (Pine Creek, Clear Creek, and East Pine Creek) run parallel in fairly straight lines across the valley and come together near the mouth of the lower canyon. The numerous smaller channels and meanders have been moved, reduced in size or eliminated. Except for the creation of the Mining Channel by placer mining in Carson Creek, there are no records of people deliberately moving these streams. It may be that the extirpation of beaver and their dams along with placer mining in Pine Creek allowed the annual spring floods to move the stream channels. Further research is needed.

Birch Creek was historically a low-gradient, meandering stream. Beaver created ponds and wet meadows. Removal of beaver dams, livestock grazing, and subsequent lowering of the water table has decreased the sinuosity of Birch Creek.

The small side streams of the Snake River Canyon were historically much as they are today. Most tributary streams in the northern portion of the Snake River canyon have not been affected by channelization. Mining and road building have altered parts of Connor Creek and Morgan Creek.

Vegetation - The vegetation types are detailed in Table 5.2. Historical vegetation was predominantly comprised of dry brush and grasses in the lowlands, and conifers with under story shrubs and grasses in the uplands. Roughly 6% of the subbasin consisted of riparian hardwoods, open meadows, and water. Open water pre-settlement was estimated at about 3,100 acres (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center 2012).

When Captain Bonneville's explorers camped in Pine Valley on January 12, 1834, they saw “part was open meadow land the rest covered in timber” (Evans 1991, Pine Valley Herald 1/12/1922). Riparian areas in Pine Valley were dominated by cottonwood galleries along the streams with either hawthorn or aspen dominant in wetter areas. Alder and cottonwood with some fir trees probably dominated the streamside vegetation in the northern portion of the valley, but on a much larger scale than it does today. Understory vegetation was comprised of willows, red-osier dogwood, and herbaceous wetland species on wetter sites, and snowberry, wild cherry, serviceberry and meadow grasses on drier sites (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Aspen stands (Walden N. 1876) and beaver meadows were widespread. Open ponderosa pine galleries on dry uplands between streams and on foothills covered the remainder of the valley. Shrub fields of snowberry and hawthorn transitioning into shrub/grasslands of bluebunch wheatgrass, greasewood (bitterbrush), and sagebrush occurred on foothills in the lower end of Pine Valley (1923 map, Pine Creek Decree; Franklin and Dyrness 1988).

2-28 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

In 1877 the Indian Wars frightened the residents of Pine Valley into building a fort just west of Halfway “it then being one of the largest open spaces in the valley. A trench was dug in a square perhaps 200 feet each way, and large logs set on end... The logs were from one to two feet through... The trees were cut from a grove north of Halfway...” (Pine Valley Herald 1922). In 1880 when the Oliver family settled in Pine Valley the ryegrass “was taller than a horse and rider” (Densley 1987; Pine Valley Community Museum 1984, v. IV p. 24). Carey Thomas at age 93 in 1978 remembered the floor of Pine Valley in 1896 with “quite a lot of brush, a lot worse than it is now” with pine trees in the upper valley but “no pines ever grew in the lower valley” (Pine Valley Community Museum 1978, v. I p.12).

The Birch Creek Watershed riparian vegetation was primarily willows with some hawthorn and snowberry along moist draws as well as many herbs such as iris and geranium. John C. Fremont on October 12, 1884, described willows growing along the “Riviere aux Bouleaux” (Birch River). In 1853, an emigrant, Henry Allyn, writes “We camp on a small stream called Birch Creek because no is birch on it” (Haines 1981).

The Snake River riparian vegetation consisted of scattered pine and fir with cottonwood galleries near side streams or point bars where the water table was high. Shrubs and willows grew near the river's high water mark. Early photos (Smith 1992) show vegetation similar to what is found today along free flowing sections below Hells Canyon Dam. Perennial streams in the narrow side canyons were overgrown with hawthorn, alder and snowberry as well as wild cherry and serviceberry. Some cottonwood trees were scattered along streams where the water table and soil would support them.

Historical Fish Abundance and Distribution

Anadromous fish and eels - Most large streams within the study area contain historic anadromous fish habitat. The Brownlee Subbasin is entirely upstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Historical accounts of Chinook and steelhead at the Brownlee Reservoir between 1958 and 1960 (the Brownlee Reservoir was completed in 1958) were between 2,600 spring Chinook and 17,000 fall Chinook, and were estimated at 4,500 steelhead (Idaho Power 2003). Anadromous species were prevented from entering the subbasin after 1967 with the construction of Hells Canyon Dam.

2-29 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 2-2 Homestead circa 1910 photo from the Baker County Library, Baker City, OR.

The primary anadromous habitat in the subbasin was in the Pine Creek watershed. There were spring Chinook, fall Chinook, steelhead, and lamprey eels which spawned in the watershed (Young, Personal Observation). When the area was first surveyed by N. Walden1 in 1872 he described Pine Valley as “... a high mountain valley with many creeks of clear water, where salmon is found in abundance in spring and fall.” The streams would be thick with dead salmon (History Project 1922). The presence of redband/rainbow trout today in Birch Creek and other smaller streams along the Snake River indicate that steelhead once used these streams.

Bull Trout – Large river-run bull trout (2-3 feet long) were present in the study area wherever anadromous fish were present. Salmon and steelhead were their primary food source, so their primary habitat was larger streams that supported anadromous fish populations (Goetz 1989). Historical records indicate that much of the Pine Creek watershed was once inhabited by bull trout. Productive bull trout populations continued to exist in the watershed after the construction of Hells Canyon Dam.

White Sturgeon – White sturgeon were always present in the Snake River, both spawning and migrating up and down stream. Early settlers along the river caught these fish whenever they could (Densley 1987).

1 “This Township includes nearly all the agricultural land of Pine Valley and has about ten thousand acres of 1st class soil. The roads into the Valley are not very plain, and mostly used for pack animals. The Pine Valley is a high mountain valley with many creeks of clear water, where Salmon is found in abundance in spring and fall. The timber of the valley consisting mostly of Pine is scattered along the foothills and of best quality The timber along the creeks is mostly Asp [aspen?], Alder and Willows. The land in the valley produces best qualities of wheat, oats and vegetables.”class soil. The roads into the Valley are not very plain, and mostly used for pack animals. The Pine Valley is a high mountain valley with many creeks of clear water, where Salmon is found in abundance in spring and fall. The timber of the valley consisting mostly of Pine is scattered along the foothills and of best quality The timber along the creeks is mostly Asp [aspen?], Alder and Willows. The land in the valley produces best qualities of wheat, oats and vegetables.”

2-30 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 2-3 Sturgeon Fishing near Home, Oregon. Photo from the Baker County Library, Baker City, OR.

Redband trout, whitefish, suckers and other native fish – The non-migratory native fish were widespread in the Brownlee Subbasin assessment area. Redband trout and whitefish were found in all the streams where cool permanent water flowed. Suckers and other native fish still migrate up Pine Creek from the Snake River (Young, personal observation).

Mussels and other invertebrates – These species were widespread throughout all streams. Native mussels still exist in the Brownlee Subbasin assessment area (Young, personal observation).

Introduced fish (bass, brook trout, pan fish, carp) – Several species of non-native fish have been introduced to the subbasin. Brook trout were planted in lakes and reservoirs in the mountains. Largemouth and smallmouth bass were introduced into the Snake River and moved up tributaries when the water was warm enough. Bluegill, crappie, carp, perch were introduced into the area’s waters.

Historical Wildlife Distribution

Game Animals – Early explores and settlers mention deer, elk, antelope, bear in the assessment area and mountain sheep in the Snake River Canyon. Wolves and mountain lions were present. In 1869 J.W. Gray came to Pine Valley and later described it; “Game of all kinds was in abundance and the streams alive with trout as there was no one to either hunt or fish. The only person in the Valley at that time was Charlie Fee who was trapping beaver and had a camp near the beaver dams below the Gover place...” Bears frequently raided the settler's hog pens (Densley 1987, p. 2). In 1877 the Greener family came to Pine Valley. E.K. (Ell) Greener (b. 1876) told of abundant game with deer in the valley and antelope in the low hills and elk in

2-31 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment the mountains. “Bears, including a few bald faced grizzlies, were a threat to the hogs” (Pine Valley Community Museum 1979, v. II, p. 37).

In 1896 market hunting was still occurring in the Pine Watershed. Blue and pintail (sharp tail) grouse as well as trout were sold in Union, Oregon for $3/dozen. Deer and elk had been practically eliminated by 1900 though remnant herds of elk remained in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains. Roland Huff, an early USFS Ranger speculates that, before settlement by farmers, deer and elk used the fertile valleys for summer range, moving to the banks of the Snake River in the winter. Until 1910 game birds were still plentiful but farming practices had eliminated nesting habitat for sharp tail grouse. Establishment of the Whitman National Forest in 1904 with rangers and guards patrolling the forest “discouraged much of the winter and spring killing of deer and to some extent game birds.” Elk and deer herds steadily increased after 1900 until in 1941 on the Whitman National Forest about 1,200 bull elk and 1,500 cow elk were legally killed that season. Cougar were scarce (and wolves gone by 1946) but other predators, such as Canada lynx, bobcats and bears were numerous (Huff 1953).

Bighorn sheep were reintroduced in the 1950s along with mountain goats. Exotic game birds such as ring necked pheasant and chukar partridge have been introduced. Gray wolves have begun to return to the area.

Beaver – Beaver were present in most lower-elevation perennial streams that had woody riparian vegetation, primarily willows, alder, and cottonwood. There would have been a complex of beaver ponds and wet meadows along these streams. Riparian vegetation would have been valley wide and the stream system as such would have been multi-stemmed in the wider valleys, each with beaver dams on it (Fouty, personal communication). Beaver ponds provided deep-water fish habitat along streams. Over time (thousands of years) these ponds filled with sediment creating wide, flat floodplains crossed by shallow, meandering streams. Fur trapping changed the landscape between 1820 and 1860 by nearly extirpating beaver and other fur bearing animals from the Brownlee Subbasin by the time of European settlement.

2-32 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 2-4 Beaver dam in Baker County; photo from S.Fouty.

Beavers were present in Pine Valley in the streams and sloughs, in North Pine Creek, Duck Creek, Lake Fork and some tributaries (Aspen Creek and Big Elk Creek) and any other streams (such as Birch Creek) that have a flat valley bottom and low (< 3%) stream gradients, although beaver will build on steeper streams (Fouty, personal communication). W. W. Lloyd relates that Charles Fee took seven packhorse loads of fur from Pine Valley in 1865 and sold them for $7,000. Streams began to incise through sediments once trapped behind beaver dams after removal of the beaver.

Historical Disturbance and Modifications

Fire – In the past, fire the subbasin would have had a return interval of about 20 years with a standard deviation of about 10 to 30 years in dry forests and grasslands. In high-elevation alpine forests, fires were usually stand replacement fires at greater than 10-year intervals (Agee 1993). Tree ring fire-scar analysis in the Blue Mountains shows that dry forests burned four times as often as mesic (wet) forests. Fire size was larger in mesic forests. Forest fires decreased

2-33 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment dramatically after 1800, probably as a result of livestock grazing (Heyerdahl and Agee 1996). Fire occurrence is driven by El Nino weather patterns (Heyerdahl et al. 2008).

Both Native Americans and early settlers used fire to make travel easier, to encourage desirable species of plants and animals and to forestall wildfire. These human-induced burns usually were small and maintained the open forest canopy and existing meadows. Neither group could prevent or stop lightning ignited fires and therefore had little to no impact on the natural fire regime of the area. Dolores Huff Young told of growing up in Pine Valley in the 1920's with “the valley so smoky every fall you couldn't see from one end to the other.” Her mother told her that as a teenager in Pine Valley they would set fires to “clean out the forest and it was fun” (Young, personal communication).

Photo 2-5 Foster Gulch Fire near the confluence of Pine Creek and North Pine Creek.

W.W. Lloyd relates a story Charles Fee told about escaping a wildfire “One day in 1866 he was on his trap line near Carson and saw a grass fire coming toward the valley from the southwest headed toward his cabin (east of the Pine Valley Fairgrounds). Hurrying down the valley on his horse he loaded his guns, ammunition, gun powder, and what furs he could on his horse as the fire was getting very close to the cabin by this time. He started north towards Pine Creek but the brush was so thick he couldn't get his horse through and as he couldn't go back, he turned the horse loose to shift for himself. Mr. Fee then crawled through the brush to the stream where he

2-34 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment stood in water knee deep while the brush burned around him, expecting any minute to hear the explosion of the gun powder and ammunition packed on the horse. Late in the evening he crawled through the brush looking for the horse and found him standing in a deep hole in the stream unharmed” (Lloyd 1954).

The recent fire history of the subbasin indicates that fire suppression has significantly altered this regime. Recent fires in 1994 (Twin Lakes, 21,975 acres) and 2006 (Foster Gulch, 53,635 acres; Twin Lakes, 12,066 acres) indicate that fires are larger and more severe today. Of interest is the Twin Lakes area which burned again in 2006. The 1994 fire was fueled by dead and down spruce trees killed in an insect epidemic in the late 1980's. The 2006 fire was fueled by the dead and down trees killed in the 1994 fire (Young, personal observation).

Floods – The floods we remember most are those in the 25-year or longer frequency. There are many peak flows during each year from snowmelt and rainfall. Some of these peak flows are large enough to inundate large areas of the floodplain, erode stream banks, and move rocks and debris. Studies of similar areas suggest that the historic floodplain which consisted of trees, shrubs, beaver dams and side channels, was usually able pass these high flows without much change to the stream bank.

Earthquakes – Earthquakes are frequent and usually too small to be felt. Faults are shown on the geology and mining map in the Chapter 6 (map 6.1).

Landslides and earthflows – Landslides have influenced stream flow in many locations, pushing streams across valleys to cut the opposite sides. Landslides that move into valley bottoms change wide valleys to narrow ones at the point of impingement and widen the valley above as sediment deposition increases above the landslide. Two examples are the mile-long/mile-wide Mud Lake Landslide complex (a translational slide) along Pine Creek, and landslides in Connor Creek that covered parts of the valley floor (Bliss 2012, personal communication).

Historical Land Use and Trends by Humans Including Modifications of the Environment

Pre-Cloumbian – The Brownlee Subbasin assessment area was a place where many different Native American tribes interacted. Difficult access and cold winters made permanent encampments unlikely except along the Snake River; but many different groups used the area, harvesting roots and berries, hunting and fishing.

Mary (Koopman) Marr moved to Pine Valley when she was 10 years old in 1882. She remembers Umatilla Indians (“200 strong”) came to hunt and fish. Myrtle (Ritter) Hendrix told her daughter that Nez Perce and Umatilla Indians used Pine Valley for summer hunting and fishing camps in the early 1900's. They camped in a large pine grove below Jim Town as well as on East Pine Creek and the Old Oliver Ranch (Pine Valley Community Museum 1978, v. I, p. 10, p. 32). Frank Crow, who lived with Indians for a short time and spoke some of the

2-35 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment language, related how in later years the Indians would pass the family home in Pine Valley on the way to and from summer camps in the Wallowa Mountains and the reservation in Idaho. Frank's son (Harold “Chick” Crow) and daughter (Leila Culbertson) remember Indians regularly camping in Pine Valley along Clear Creek and the lower valley. “They'd been camping at Fish Lake … The horses were strung out a mile or more...” relates Mrs. Culbertson. Chick tells how “... I woke up and saw lots of smoke coming from that pasture...... The farms weren't fenced... The Indians were camped on Clear Creek” (Pine Valley Community Museum 1991, v. 5, pp, 23- 30). Parties of several tribes, the Nez Perce, Umatillas, Walla Walla, Cayuse, and others, roamed through the country in summer, but went to lower and warmer altitudes for winter (History Project 1922).

The Umatilla Indians camped in the Hells Canyon as late as the 1860's (Pine Valley Community Museum 1984, v. 4, p. 27). The Umatilla and Nez Perce Indians used the Brownlee Ferry in 1876 to cross the Snake River going to Salmon Meadows and Indian Valley, Idaho. Chief Winnemucca of the Paiute tribe crossed with the ferry in early spring of 1877. Indians camped at the lower end of Pine Valley at that time hunting, fishing and picking elder berries and choke cherries (Lloyd 1954). The Cayuse Tribe of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation claims the assessment area as part of their tribal homeland. Tribal members gathered and used foods in the assessment area from their Five First Foods groups: water, salmon, deer, roots and berries (Ferman 2011). The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation website provides an explanation of the First Foods philosophy and discussion of issues about managing for First Foods. The First Foods known to currently or previously exist in the assessment area are listed below. (1) Water: springs, streams and lakes. (2) Salmon group: mussels, trout, whitefish, suckers. Chinook salmon, steelhead and lamprey are no longer present. (3) Deer group: mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, whitetail deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain goats. (4) Cous group: celery, camas, bitterroot and other roots. (5) Huckleberry group: huckleberries, chokecherries and other berries.

The Baker Heritage Museum (formerly Oregon Trail Regional Museum) has a map prepared by two Halfway residents (Thompson and Herdlick 2011) showing the following Native American trails in the northern part of the assessment area: (1) Pine Valley to Imnaha River via Pine Creek and East Fork Pine Creek; (2) Pine Valley to Imnaha River via Clear Creek;

2-36 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

(3) Snake River to Imnaha River via Herman Creek; (4) Snake River to Imnaha River via north ridgeline of Hunsaker Creek and North Pine Creek; (5) Cutoffs up Duck Creek and Grave Creek; and (6) North ridgeline of Pine Creek drainage from East Fork Pine Creek to Herman Creek.

The same map shows three known Native American grave sites: one west of Halfway, one east of Halfway, and one on Grave Creek. Estella Summers tells that when she was in high school (late 1920's) Indians from Pendleton would come to Halfway to decorate these graves (Pine Valley Community Museum 1991, v. V, p. 29). Native American camp sites were located near Spring Creek, Dove Creek, Dry Creek, East Pine Creek, and Pine Creek.

Euro-American settlement

Early Explorers – Fur trappers are believed to have been active in the assessment area primarily from the 1820s to the 1840s though Charles Fee was still trapping in Pine Valley in 1865 (Lloyd 1954). “In 1811, New Yorker John Jacob Astor sent the Wilson Price Hunt expedition overland to establish a trading post at the mouth of the Columbia River. They traveled along the Snake River to the Farewell Bend area. Hunt crossed the Snake River at Farewell Bend, following a route along the [Burnt River and] Powder River that later became part of the Oregon Trail.” (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p. 8).

Early explorers were Captain Benjamin Bonneville, who traversed almost the entire assessment area in 1834, and US Army Captain John C. Fremont. On October 12, 1843, Fremont wrote “...willows begin to appear in the dry bed of the head of the Riviere aux Bouleaux (Birch River) ...found at its junction with another branch, a little water, not very good or abundant...” (Haines 1981).

Transportation

Oregon Trail to Modern Roads – Approximately 13 miles of the Oregon Trail are located in the southern part of the assessment area, south of Huntington; the trail goes northward down Love Reservoir Creek and lower Birch Creek to the Snake River, then west along the Snake River to Benson Creek, then northwest up Benson Creek to the Burnt River divide (BLM Map 2007). In 1842 the first wagon train traveled through the study area. The wagon train, first led by Dr. Elijah White and later by Lansford Hastings, consisted of 112 people and 18 wagons, plus horses, mules and cattle (Evans 1990). The Tim Goodall Wagon train crossed the Snake River at Brownlee Creek in 1862 and traveled through Pine Valley, crossed over to Eagle Valley and up the Powder River to Baker Valley. There is a marker in Pine Valley placed by W.W. Lloyd (History Project 1922).

2-37 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The Baker Heritage Museum (formerly Oregon Trail Regional Museum) has a map prepared by two Halfway residents (Thompson and Herdlick 2011) showing eight early wagon roads into the Pine Valley area. These roads connected the valley with the county seats at Union, Baker City, Sparta, and New Bridge. A road connected Cornucopia with small towns (Carson, Langrell, Halfway, and Pinetown) in Pine Valley and with Robinette, Brownlee Ferry and Copperfield on the Snake River.

The early travel routes into the northern part of the assessment area also included a wagon road down the Snake River from Huntington to Robinette with a cutoff at Quicksilver Creek to Daly Creek and Richland; a wagon road from Cambridge, Idaho, to Brownlee Ferry a few miles upstream of current-day Brownlee Dam; and a wagon road down the Kleinschmidt Grade in Idaho to Ballards Ferry. “In 1925 The Idaho and Oregon transportation departments built a bridge across the Snake River at Ballard’s Landing” (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p.36- 37). Interstate Freeway 80N (now I-84) was completed through the southern part of the study area on or before 1975, with part of the route along the old Oregon Trail and US Highway 30 (Interstate 2011).

Stock Driveways (Cattle, Sheep and Horse Trails) – Settlers brought horses, cattle and sheep into the assessment area to take advantage of about 250,000 acres of low-elevation grasslands (bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue and basin wildrye) and subalpine grasslands (green fescue and mountain brome). Grazing on public rangelands in the assessment area was not regulated until establishment of the Wallowa Forest Reserve in the northern part of the area in 1905. Grazing on public lands administered by the BLM began with the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. By the year 1900, it is estimated that thousands of cattle, sheep and horses grazed public and private rangelands of the assessment area each year.

The first cattle came to Pine Valley in 1868 and were moved to Brownlee to graze when the hay ran out. Sheep first arrived in 1875. In 1889 a band of sheep owned by a Mr. Lansing ran the hills of the (Pine) valley and Summit Creek until fall, then moved to Snake River below Copperfied where he lost all but 30 head (Lloyd 1954).

Horses were an economic resource and were gathered and driven to markets. In the late 1890's Dan Tarter gathered a large herd of horses and held them on the Oxbow before driving them to Montana to be sold as remounts for the Boer War. Horses ran on the low hills south of Pine Valley all year (Young, personal communication). Sheep grazing followed the snow back to high elevations in the summer and down to Snake River in the winter time. The USFS designated stock driveways on North Pine Creek that were used by both sheep and cattle (Young, personal observation).

Ferries – Eight ferries were operated in the assessment area: Olds Ferry, Peck’s Ferry, Mineral Ferry, Sturgill Ferry, an unnamed ferry, Robinette Ferry, Brownlee Ferry and Ballards Ferry.

2-38 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Some of these ferries only provided private service and some of them were known by more than one owner’s name.

Railroads – “In [1884], the Oregon Short Line Railroad (a branch of the Union Pacific) finished laying tracks from Granger, Wyoming, to the Huntington town site, originally called Miller’s Station where it joined with the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company In 1907, the ORN built a branch line 23 miles downriver from Huntington to Soda Creek. The railroad was extended to Robinette by 1909 and in 1910,…as the Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company (OWRNC)…[was] extended…from Robinette to Copperfield and Homestead” (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p.26). The railroad tracks were removed from Homestead to Robinette in 1934 (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p.38).

Steamboats and Passenger Boats – Three steamboats operated on the Snake River in the assessment area: the Shoshone, Norma, and Mable. W.W. Lloyd tells of touring on the Norma in 1899 at Copperfield as she waited for high water to allow the boat to use the river.

Miners and Mining

Placer Mines – With the discovery of gold in the Baker City area in 1861, prospectors soon established placer mines in Pine Creek, upstream from Halfway (Lloyd 1954), and in Connor Creek below Lookout Mountain. Placer mining began in Carson Creek in 1863 (Lloyd 1954).

Ditches were constructed along both sides of Pine Creek canyon to wash gold from placer deposits. This placer mining resulted in channel modification of Lee and Carson Creek into what is now called the Mining Channel (map 7.3). Upper Pine Creek was relocated in many places to access gold under its channel. The reach of Pine Creek upstream of Pine Valley was mined again in the 1980s and early 1990s, this time using track hoes and dump trucks. This resulted in Pine Creek being confined by dikes at these sites. There is a map of the area mines and prospects in chapter 6 (map 6.1), and a table A6.4 summarizes the historic mining activity.

2-39 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 2-6 Boulder Creek Placer circa 1913. Placer mining at the confluence of Boulder Creek and Pine Creek. The area was reworked in the 1980's. Photo from the Baker County Library collection, Baker County, Oregon.

Hard Rock Mines – “Gold [veins were] discovered in Cornucopia in 1884,” and “the town was platted in 1886” (Pine Valley Community Museum 1984, v. IV, p. 5). Underground mining equipment was brought to Oregon by railroad and to Cornucopia by wagon road, and mining continued there until World War II.

“In 1898, the Iron Dyke Mines opened south of the future town site of Homestead. Minerals recovered from the Iron Dyke included copper, gold, and silver. A sawmill near Pine Creek provided timbers for mining shafts and portals. For several years, the Iron Dyke was one of the most productive mines in Oregon” (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p, 23).

The Connor Creek district became active in the 1860s with the majority of its production completed before 1910, with roughly 97,000 ounces of lode gold and 6,100 ounces of placer gold produced by 1959. A map of the early “gold fields” along Snake River shows numerous mines between Huntington and Ballards Landing (Densley 1987).

Farmers, Orchardists and Ranchers

Permanent settlers began arriving shortly after the arrival of miners. In 1860, Charles L. Fee built a cabin just east of the Pine Valley Fairgrounds and spent the winter trapping (Lloyd 1954). Farmers began growing food and hay crops in Pine Valley and on the Snake River terraces beginning in the late 1860’s and early 1870’s. The first irrigation water rights of record for the assessment area date to 1870 in Pine Valley (Parker 1930, re. Pine Creek Decree). In 1880 there were nine families in Pine Valley. A settler could acquire land through homestead, timber culture, desert claim, and preemption. On Fox Creek, a timber culture was planted to black walnuts (Densley 1987).

2-40 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Andy Culver, a horse trader and trapper, built a cabin at the mouth of Pine Creek (Copperfield/Oxbow) in the 1870s (Pine Valley Community Museum 1984,Vol. IV, p 27). There were many orchards along the Snake River from Home to Homestead. “Large cherry orchards were… located near the Park Creek (present-day Canyon Creek) railroad siding in the early 1900s” (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p. 29). “William Baker, a bread maker from Baker City, bought the Cook ranch near Connor Creek in 1905 and set out hundreds of fruit trees. In 1908 Fred and Martha Basche, also from Baker City, homesteaded land near the Baker property. Near the Basche and Baker properties, the hamlet of Home, Oregon grew around the old post office in 1910.” (Buckendorf, Bauer and Jacox 2001, p. 28).

Towns and Communities – The named communities in the assessment area, from upstream to downstream are/were Farewell Bend, Gypsum (1910), Conner Creek, Home (1910), Park, Robinette (1907), Copperfield (1908), Oxbow and Homestead (1910) along the Snake River; and Cornucopia (1884), Carson, Jimtown, Halfway (1887), and Pine in Pine Valley. Home and Robinette were inundated by Brownlee Reservoir; Homestead was partly inundated by Hells Canyon Reservoir. Lillian Cummings Densley's map of “The Winding Trail from Robinette to Huntington” shows the towns and ranches along the river (figure 2-1).

The human population of the assessment area is estimated to have been about 2,000 people during the “boom days” of mining, ranching and railroading. Cornucopia was the largest community with a population of about 1,000 in 1885; the mines and post office closed in 1942 as people left for higher-paying war-related jobs on the west coast. Another boom occurred from 1958-1968 during construction of the Hells Canyon Complex of three dams, Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon. Today’s permanent human population is about 1,200. The 2010 census found 288 people in the City of Halfway, the largest community in the study area. The population of Baker County has been relatively constant since 1900, averaging roughly 16,000 residents (http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/or190090.txt ).

Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fishing and hunting were done historically for food and for sale. Fresh game and fish, hides, and fur all had commercial value. Predators, especially wolves, mountain lions and bears, were killed to prevent livestock losses (see the Fish and Wildlife sections above for details). Today Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon Reservoirs are the major recreational fisheries in the assessment area, followed by Pine Creek. The focus of recreational hunting along streams and in uplands is deer, elk and birds.

2-41 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 2-1 Lillian Cummings Densley's map of “The Winding Trail from Robinette to Huntington” shows the towns and ranches along the Snake River (from Densley 1987, used by permission of the author).

2-42 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Timber Harvest and Fire Suppression – Timber harvest began in 1862 when miners entered Pine Valley, and continued through the pioneer settlement years, primarily for construction of homes, barns, fences, flumes, firewood and other uses necessary for survival of an isolated community. The first lumber sawn in Pine Valley was the winter of 1879-80 when a large pine, at the present location of Halfway, was felled and whipsawed into lumber (Lloyd 1954). W.W. Lloyd describes 13 early sawmills and one flour mill in Pine Valley. Early sawmills were in operation on East Pine Creek, Dry Creek, Fish Creek, and Pine Creek near Carson (J.Young, personal observation; Lloyd 1954). Some timber was also removed from the breaks of the Snake River for local use.

The first three timber sales in the 1905 Wallowa Forest Reserve were in the Pine Creek drainage of the assessment area. These sales totaled 55,000 board feet, mostly for mine timbers (Erickson 1906). Extensive road building and timber harvest on public land did not begin until after WWII. About 348 million board feet had been harvested on USFS managed lands in the assessment area by 1998 (PCWA 1998). Timber sales peaked in the 1980's and have dramatically declined since then.

Fire Suppression was one of the early mandates of the USFS, primarily to protect watersheds for drinking water and irrigation. Their efforts began in earnest in the West after the catastrophic burns of 1909-1910. By the 1930's with better equipment, including airplanes, fire suppression efforts were successful in stopping most fires. This resulted in a buildup of fuels and forested areas that were less fire-resistant. Today wildfires are more frequent and larger (Johnson 1994).

Water Use – Water was first used primarily for placer mining with water being diverted into ditches, sluices and flumes in 1862. There was a pipeline from East Fork Pine Creek to the Cornucopia Mine for power generation and mining water use. The City of Halfway has municipal wells, but still retains its original municipal water rights to area springs. As farmers and ranchers settled the area, water was diverted for irrigation of crops, gardens and orchards, and for human consumption and livestock uses. A hydropower tunnel/plant was constructed at the Snake River Oxbow beginning in 1908. Railroads came with construction of tracks down the Snake River to Home (1907), Robinette (1909) and Homestead (1910). Reservoirs were constructed in the mountains of the Pine Creek drainage and in the Birch Creek drainage from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s to provide late season irrigation water. In 1930 the Pine Creek Decree adjudicated water rights in the Pine Creek Watershed and set the irrigation season from April 1 through September 30.

Wells were drilled in Pine Valley, along the Snake River and in Birch Creek at farms, ranches and homes for domestic, stock and small irrigation uses. In the 1950s and 1960s water was stored behind the three Snake River dams for power generation. In 1970 and 1992 water was set aside by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for in-stream fish and aquatic life uses. The USFS, which claims reserved water rights for purposes of forest reserves, has obtained other

2-43 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment water rights for human consumption, stock, wildlife, road, wetland and firefighting uses (Bliss 2012).

Historical Time Line

1750 to 1800 – Europeans, mostly fur-trappers, begin to settle into the Oregon Territory.

1834 – Captain B. Bonneville explores and maps the area. Bonneville's party traveling down the Snake River crossed the Powder River on January 12 and camped in Pine Valley that night.

1843 – The beginning of the “great migration” along the Oregon Trail.

1850 – Annual salmon production prior to 1850 in the Snake River Basin is estimated at 1.4 million Chinook, about one-fourth of which passed through the Brownlee Subbasin each year.

1855 – Native American use of the area began to be curtailed by treaties with the USA.

1862 – Prospectors discover gold on Pine Creek and Connor Creek, and begin placer mining.

1862 – The Brownlee Ferry begins operation.

1870 – The priority date of the earliest irrigation water rights in the study area are in Pine Valley.

1884 – Cornucopia Mining District becomes active.

1887 – Halfway post office begins operation.

1898 – The Iron Dyke Mines open near the future town site of Homestead.

1905 – William Baker establishes a large peach orchard at Connor Creek.

1906-1907 – Livestock grazing and timber harvest on Wallowa Forest Reserve becomes regulated. Imnaha Forest Reserve created, which includes Pine Creek and the Snake River.

1907 to 1910 – Railroad extended from Huntington to Soda Creek and, in 1910, to Homestead.

1907 to 1908 – The towns of Robinette and Copperfield are established. Copperfield is a base of operations for men working on the Snake River Oxbow tunnel and power plant.

1935 – The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 begins management of livestock grazing on BLM lands.

1959 to 1967 – The Hells Canyon Complex of hydroelectric dams is built by Idaho Power Company: Brownlee Dam in 1959; Oxbow Dam in 1961; and Hells Canyon Dam in 1967.

2-44 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

1992 to 2005 – Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are listed as threatened species.

1996 – Several streams in Pine Creek are listed by ODEQ as water quality limited (303d list).

2003 – Idaho Power Company submits a 36,000 page application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the three-dam hydroelectric Hells Canyon Project.

Discussion

Until 1967, the streams in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin provided clean, cold water to support large runs of anadromous fish. Chinook salmon, steelhead and lamprey migrated up the Snake River and into the side streams, particularly the Pine Creek Watershed. Most lower- elevation perennial streams would have been a complex of beaver ponds, with wet meadows. Riparian vegetation was widespread along these streams, and beaver ponds provided deep-water fish habitat. Fur trapping changed the landscape between 1820 and 1860 by nearly extirpating beaver from the assessment area.

Early settlement, beginning in 1860, was focused on farming and livestock raising, but placer mining also began at this time in the Pine Creek Watershed and along the Snake River. Along with diverting water for placer mining, in 1870 the first irrigation withdrawals for farming were documented in the Brownlee Subbasin. Since then, the streams have changed significantly, primarily due to livestock grazing, farming and mining of gold and aggregate minerals.

Changes in herbaceous plants from livestock grazing have led to the reduction or near extirpation of many native grasses and herbs from landscapes in the southern part of the study area and along the Snake River benches (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Sparse grass cover, severe erosion, and intense rodent activity is common at shallow soil sites on National Forest land around Pine Valley; these sites are believed to have once had good grass cover (Bliss 2012). These changes in the plant community have accelerated erosion, causing negative impacts to riparian areas.

The farmed areas have seen large changes in streams from channelization, ditching, diking, and water diversion. Beaver pond habitat is now rare in the study area. Although mining has declined, it has left a legacy of dikes and tailings that confine stream channels. Water quality is affect by erosion of disturbed soils, pollutants, and unstable stream banks.

The Pine Creek Watershed has seen large-scale changes through stream channelization and removal of trees and shrubs in floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands on private land. This has reduced the capacity of the stream system to carry high flows through the system. The extirpation of beaver in the Pine Creek watershed has led to loss of riparian and fish habitat and changes in stream dynamics. Placer mining along Pine Creek has reduced meanders and increased sediment. Increased residential development and associated infrastructure next to streams has led to further confinement of streambeds in Pine Valley. Damaging floods, bank

2-45 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment erosion and loss of infrastructure (bridges and roads) is increasing. Irrigation withdrawal and channelization of streams has reduced aquatic habitat for fish and other animals.

The southern portion of the assessment area including Birch Creek has been changed by intense grazing pressure from livestock and the removal of beaver. Livestock grazing has changed the amount and diversity of riparian vegetation. The absence of beaver dams has lowered the water table and decreased the sinuosity of the streams. There is less riparian-wetland-floodplain habitat to support fish and other aquatic species.

The single largest land use change was dam construction along the Snake River, which blocked fish passage for anadromous species. The three reservoirs inundated riverine spawning/rearing habitats, riparian-wetland-floodplain habitats, and nearby upland rangeland habitats along 92 river miles of the Snake River from Hells Canyon Dam (river mile 247.7) to Darrows Islands east of Farewell Bend (river mile 339.3), plus several miles of these habitats along tributary streams. This has decreased habitat for native fish such as bull trout and white sturgeon and increased habitat for nonnative fish such as bass and carp. The small side streams in the Snake River Canyon have seen little change except for Conner Creek and Homestead Creek where mining has channelized the stream and reduced riparian habitat.

In the larger context of the ecoregion however the area has seen fewer agricultural impacts than the larger Snake River plain because very little land in the study area is suitable for farming. The diversity of species and extent of riparian vegetation in floodplains, riparian areas and wetlands on public land is moving toward the historical condition. Stream stability has been compromised on Upper Pine Creek where mining has modified stream bank morphology and sediment input from rangelands is high. This instability is limiting recovery of the stream and affecting downstream riparian areas and floodplains by increasing the amount and frequency of sediment input. Streams and the riparian vegetation on private lands in Pine Valley have been reduced from their historical size and extent. This reduction is limiting restoration of fish and aquatic habitats.

2-46 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 2-1 Historical Land Use Patterns and Trends.

Pine Creek Southern Foothills Snake River

Vegetation and More (non-native More (non-native invasive More (non-native invasive species) wildlife patterns invasive species) species) Forest and rangeland condition trend Tree/shrub lands Rangeland condition trend static or downward from grazing and converted to pasture static or downward from fire suppression Forest and rangeland grazing and fire Riparian-wetland-floodplain condition trend static or suppression vegetation inundated by reservoirs downward from grazing No beaver remain Mountain sheep reintroduced and fire suppression Few beaver remain Elk at or above historic levels

Patterns of settlement Hard rock and placer Livestock grazing Hard rock and placer mining legacy and agricultural mining legacy decrease continues to impact decrease stream bank stability practices stream bank stability riparian habitat. Livestock grazing continues on side Livestock grazing and Farming/grazing practices streams farming in Pine Valley unchanged but fewer Farms/orchards replaced by reduce riparian-wetland- people. recreational home sites or inundated floodplain habitat Public land = 51 % Public land = 71% Public land = 69%

Stream channel Channelization causing Riparian-wetland- Side stream riparian habitat in good /riparian habitat trends reduction in riparian floodplain habitat in poor condition vegetation/habitat on condition but static Snake River riparian habitat private land inundated Public land riparian habitat upward trend

Fish species and No anadromous fish No anadromous fish No anadromous fish abundance Bull trout declining Some redband trout Redband trout present in side Redband trout limited by present in perennial streams/ reservoirs irrigation streams White sturgeon present, habitat limited Nonnative fish present

2-47 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 2-1 Historical Land Use Patterns and Trends.

Pine Creek Southern Foothills Snake River

Water quality trends Irrigation withdrawal Lack of shade increase Side stream quality static; Snake dewaters streams and water temperature River reservoirs have poor water increases temperature on quality both public and private land

Data Gaps

 Spatially explicit information regarding historic (not current) channel location of Birch Creek; possible data sources are BLM and USGS maps.  Information regarding what caused the channel changes of streams in Pine Valley since 1872; possible sources are Baker County land records, local bank records, and historical diaries.

Key Findings and Recommendations

 What was the condition of the watershed at the time of Euro-American settlement?

o The Brownlee Subbasin had a variety of habitats, from cold, high-mountain streams, to the free-flowing Snake River that supported healthy populations of anadromous and native fish, and various riparian species.

 What are the historical trends of land use and management?

o The discovery of gold in the 1860s provided the impetus for settlement and the development of agriculture in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin.

o Farming, primarily in Pine Valley, and livestock grazing have reduced the amount and quality of riparian and aquatic habitat.

o Construction of the Hells Canyon Complex of dams has led to use of the Snake River for reservoir storage to produce hydroelectric power and flood control.

o The population of the study area peaked during the gold rush and again during construction of the Hells Canyon Complex. Little or no population increase is expected.

2-48 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 What are the historical accounts of fish abundance and distribution?

o Anadromous fish were present in the Snake River in millions and in the Pine Creek Watershed in large numbers.

o Bull trout, redband trout, and white sturgeon were abundant in area streams and in the Snake River  Restoration of suitable habitat in the Brownlee Subbasin would increase bull and redband trout.

 What is the location and extent of historical disturbance and modifications?

o The small amount of private land and lack of population pressure has limited widespread changes. The most productive aquatic habitat is located on private agricultural land. The quality of riparian-wetland-floodplain habitat has been reduced in Pine Valley and Birch Creek.  Restoration of the extent and complexity of stream channels and riparian vegetation, especially in Pine Valley, would reduce impacts from floods on property and improve fish habitat.

 Increasing in-stream flows through irrigation efficiency and acquisition of in- stream water rights is needed to increase fish abundance and improve riparian habitats.

o Mining along Pine Creek, Connor Creek and other streams in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin have decreased riparian-wetland-floodplain habitat and increased sediment.  An inventory and evaluation of mined riparian areas is needed to identify areas for restoration.

 Restoration of mined riparian areas and stabilization of sediments is needed.

o The three Snake River reservoirs have reduced the amount of riparian-wetland- floodplain habitat along Snake River.

o Construction of the Hells Canyon Complex dams blocked passage of sockeye, Coho, sturgeon, lamprey, large river-run bull trout, steelhead and Chinook to the study area.  Provision of fish passage past the three dams would restore anadromous fish to the Brownlee Subbasin and the upper Snake River.

2-49 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

References

Agee, James K, 1993, Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Bliss, Tim, 2012, Hydrologist, Baker City, OR, personal communication.

Buckendorf, M.K., B.P. Bauer, and E. Jacox, 2001, Non-Native Exploration Settlement, and Land Use of the Greater Hells Canyon Area, 1800s to 1950s, The Arrowrock Group, Inc., Technical Report Appendix E. 4-11, FERC No. 1971, available online: http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/Relicensing/hellscanyon/hellspdfs/techappendices/Cultural/e0 4_11.pdf

Densley, Lillian Cummings, 1987, Saints, Sinners, and Snake River Secrets, The Record Courier Printers, Baker City, Oregon.

Evans, John W, 1990, Powerful Rocky: The Blue Mountains and the Oregon Trail, Pika Press, Enterprise, Oregon.

Fouty, Suzanne, 2012, Forest Service Hydrologist, Wallow-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, OR, personal communication.

Franklin, Jerry F. and Dyrness, C.T., 1988, Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Idaho Power, 2003, New License Application Hells Canyon FERC Project No. 1971, available online: http://www.idahopower.com/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Relicensing/hellscanyon/HCapplication. cfm .

Goetz, Fred, 1989, Biology of the Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus a Literature Review, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

Haines, Aubrey L., 1981, Historic Sites Along the Oregon Trail, John C. Fremont quote, page 347, The Patrice Press, St Louis, Missouri.

Heyerdahl, Emily K. et al, 2008, Climate drivers of regionally synchronous fires in the inland Northwest (1651–1900), International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2008, v. 17, pp 40–49.

Heyerdahl, Emily K, and Agee, James, 1996, Historical Fire Regimes of Four Sites in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, Electronic copy at Oregon State University

History Project, 1922, Pine Valley Herald, January 12, 1922, Baker County Library, Halfway Branch. Q Oregon 979.575.H673.

2-50 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Huff, Rolland, 1953, G-Wildlife-Early Day Game Conditions, Memorandum to Files, January 19, 1953, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana

Johnson, Charles G., Jr., 1994, Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: A Plant Ecologist's Perspective on Ecosystem Processes and Biological Diversity; USDA, General Technical Report, PNW, GTR-339, September, 1994.

Lloyd, W.W., 1954, Historical Sketches of the Panhandle and its People, Baker County Library, Halfway Branch. Q Oregon 979.575.L793.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, 2012, Portland State University, available online: http://orbic.pdx.edu/ .

Powder Basin Watershed Council, 2000, Pine Creek Assessment, Baker City, OR.

Pine Creek Decree, Adjudicated 1930, Oregon Water Resources Department, Baker City, OR.

Pine Valley Community Museum, 1978, 1979, 1984, 1991, Pine Valley Echoes, Halfway, Oregon; Volumes 1, 2, 4 and 5.

River Design Group, 2012, Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report, prepared for the Powder Basin Watershed Council.

Smith, Sybyl, 1992, Pine Valley Vignettes; Maverick Publications Inc, Bend OR

Thomas, Jack Ward, 1979a, (Editor). Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests – The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 553, Washington, D.C. 510 p.

Walden, N. 1876. Early cadastral survey maps, electronic copy at http://blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy .

2-51 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 3 Channel Habitat Type

Introduction

The goal of the Channel Habitat Type (CHT) assessment is to identify stream channels in the watershed where opportunities may exist for enhancement and restoration. A CHT assessment classifies and maps stream channels based on stream size, channel slope, channel confinement, and channel position in the watershed. Once assigned to stream segments, the CHTs are used to focus the analysis on those streams most responsive to changes in the watershed.

The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (Manual) identifies two critical questions regarding CHT: “(1) What is the distribution of CHTs throughout the watershed; (2) What are the locations of CHTs that are likely to provide specific aquatic habitat features, as well as those areas which may be the most sensitive to changes in watershed condition?”

Materials and Methods

The Manual describes a multi-step process for assigning and evaluating the CHTs in the watershed. The methods section describes these steps and how they guided the assessment of the Brownlee Subbasin.

Step 1. Prepare maps and materials

For this assessment, the analyst mapped and classified the stream segments using the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) programs ArcGIS 10.1 and 3-D Analysis developed by ESRI. The GIS mapping program allows one to overlay maps and to query large data sets.

The USGS has mapped stream channels for the entire nation and made the data available to the public as GIS shape files in the National Hydrologic Data set (USGS 2011). The National Hydrologic Data set served as the base stream network for this project. The map layers are summarized in table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Summary of map layers used to determine CHT. Map layer Purpose Source Aerial photographs Stream locations and Accessed Bing maps through the ESRI ArcGIS condition 10 program. Fish presence and Stream size Oregon Department of Forestry stream size data http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/gis_home.shtml Geologic maps Provide description Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral of surface geology Industries (DOGAMI) 2009. Data on CD. National Hydrologic Provide base stream US Geological Survey (2012),National Data Set layer Hydrologic Data Set http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html

3-52 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 3-1 Summary of map layers used to determine CHT. Map layer Purpose Source Pine Valley Water Show location of Baker City office of the Oregon Department of Right Decree Maps streams and ditches Water Resources in Pine Valley US Geological Land-surface USDA NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway Survey Digital elevation on a 30 http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/ Elevation Models meter grid. (DEMs) US Geological Elevation and Igage Mapping Corporation Survey Topographic topographic http://www.igage.com/ Maps information 1:24,000 and 1:100,000 scale

Step 2. Break out stream fragments based on gradient class

The analyst used the ArcGIS 10, 3-D Spatial Analyst program to compute the average slope of stream segments based on elevations contained in the USGS’s Digital Elevation Models.

Table 3-2 Channel gradient classes. Channel Gradient Classes < 1% 4-8% 1-2% 8-16% 2-4% >16%

Step 3. Estimate channel confinement

Channel confinement is defined by the Manual as the ratio of bank-full width to the width of the modern floodplain. Channel confinement controls the ability of a stream to move laterally across its floodplain. The degree of channel confinement was determined by using GIS to evaluate flood plain morphology on aerial photographs and the USGS Topographic Maps.

Table 3-3 Channel confinement classes.

Map Code Confinement class Floodplain width

U Unconfined > 4x bank-full width M Moderately confined >2x but <4x bank-full width C Confined < 2x bank-full width

3-53 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Step 4. Assign Initial CHT Designation

The analyst assigned stream segments based on Table 3.4 taken from the Manual, then assigned CHTs based on the gradients determined in step 2, channel confinement determined in step 3, and the stream’s size. The Oregon Department of Forestry (2012) has classified streams as small, medium, or large based on average annual flow and made these data available as GIS map layer (table 3.5).

Table 3-4 CHT classifications table taken from the Manual shows the CHT classification system used to assign CHTs to stream channel segments based on gradient, channel confinement and ODF stream size. Code CHT Name Gradient Channel Stream Size Confinement FP1 Low Gradient <1% Unconfined Large Large Floodplain FP2 Low Gradient <1% Unconfined Medium to large Medium Floodplain FP3 Low Gradient <2% Unconfined Small to medium Small Floodplain AF Alluvial Fan 1-5% Variable Small to medium LM Low Gradient <2% Moderately Variable Moderately confined Confined LC Moderate <2% Confined Variable Gradient Confined MM Moderate 2-4% Moderately Variable Gradient confined Moderately Confined MC Moderate 2-4% Confined Variable Gradient Confined MH Moderate 1-6% Confined Small Gradient Headwater MV Moderately 3-10% Confined Small to medium Steep Narrow Valley BC Bedrock Canyon 1 - >20% Confined Variable SV Steep Narrow 8-16% Confined Small Valley VH Very Steep >16% Confined Small Headwater

3-54 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 3-5 Oregon Department of Forestry (2012) stream size classification criteria. Large Average annual flow ≥ 10 cfs Medium Average annual flow > 2 cfs and < 10 cfs Small Average annual flow < 2 cfs

Step 5. Improving the mapping

The next step in evaluating CHTs in the watershed is to improve the mapping. The analyst did this by reviewing existing research and maps, and by making site visits. The project area is very large so the detailed work focused on those areas of greatest concern as identified by the PBWC. Preliminary analysis showed Pine Creek and its tributaries had the greatest number of stream miles sensitive to change in the study area. The analyst and other members of the watershed assessment team visited Pine Valley to study Pine Creek and its tributaries. The field review and aerial photographs revealed that the NHD data set to was inaccurate for Pine Valley. The Baker City office of the Oregon Water Resources Department provided digital copies of the water-right decree maps prepared when the Department adjudicated the water rights in the 1920s. The analyst imported these maps into the GIS and overlaid them on recent aerial photographs. The map overlay, site visits, and discussions with local residents were used to correct stream-channel and irrigation-ditch locations.

Step 6. Determine CHT Sensitivity

The purpose of this step is to determine stream-channel sensitivity to change based on assigned CHTs. Stream-channel sensitivity is the response of the stream channel to alterations or events in the watershed. An example of a CHT sensitive to change is a low gradient, large floodplain (FP1) stream in flood stage. During extreme flood these streams can migrate laterally and form new channels. An example of a CHT not responsive to change is a very steep headwater (VH) stream. During peak flow events, runoff passes through these streams quickly. Any change to the stream channel is localized and moderate. In general, the lower-gradient, less confined channels have high sensitivity to change and the steeper-gradient, confined channels rate as having low sensitivity to change. Table 3-6 taken from the Manual summarizes the characteristics of streams with high, moderate, and low sensitivity.

The Manual has rated sensitivity of the CHTs listed in table 3.4.  High Sensitivity: FP1, FP2, FP3, MM and LM  Moderate Sensitivity: MV, MH, MC and LC  Low Sensitivity: Low Sensitivity BC, VH and SV  Variable: AF

3-55 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 3-6 Table from the Manual summarizing the characteristics of CHTs with low, moderate, and high sensitivity. Rating Large Woody Fine Sediment Coarse Sediment Peak Flows Debris High Critical element Fines are readily Bed load Nearly all bed in maintenance stored with deposition material is of channel form, increases in dominant active mobilized; pool formation, available channel process; significant gravel sediment general decrease widening or trapping/sorting, resulting in in substrate size, deepening of and bank widespread pool channel channel. protection. filling and loss of widening, overall conversion to complexity of plane bed bed form. morphology if sediment is added. Moderate One of a number Increases in Slight change in Detectable of roughness sediment would overall changes in elements present; result in minor morphology; channel form; contributes to pool filling and localized minor widening, pool formation bed fining. widening and scour expected. and gravel shallowing. sorting. Low Not a primary Temporary Temporary Minimal change roughness storage only; storage only; in physical element; often most is most is channel found only along transported transported characteristics, channel margins. through with through with some scour and little impact. little impact. fill. Results and Discussion

Map 3.1 shows the CHTs assigned to 1,885 miles of mapped stream channels and 77 miles of mapped irrigation ditches. The results of the CHT analysis are organized by HUC 6s according to their level of CHT diversity.

Most of the area is characterized by steep terrain, which is reflected in the CHTs assigned. Very steep headwater (VH) and steep narrow valley (SV) are the dominant CHTs in the Brownlee Subbasin: 56.1% of the mapped stream-channel length is VH and 20.3% is SV. VH and SV stream channels are located in steep, narrow, V-shaped valleys and have single, straight, tightly confined channels. The dominant substrate in these channels is composed of large cobbles and bedrock. VH channels have a stream gradient exceeding 16%; SV channels have a gradient of

3-56 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

8-16%. These channels are not highly responsive to change, so channel enhancements may not yield intended results. Some opportunity may exist, however, to ameliorate elevated water temperature downstream by establishing riparian vegetation.

Bedrock canyons (BC) occur on steep mountain slopes, have single straight channels, and have a substrate of bedrock and boulders. These CHTs are the least responsive to change and are poor sites for enhancement.

The terrain in the HUC 6 subwatersheds bordering the Snake River is characterized by steep slopes, narrow canyons and straight, single channels (table 3-7). In ten of the Snake River HUC 6 subwatersheds the only CHTs are VH and SV. These CHTs are rated by the Manual as having low sensitivity to change.

Table 3-7 Six HUC 6s contain only CHTs rated as having low sensitivity. Code HUC 6 name SV (miles) VH (miles) Total miles 7 Ryan Gulch-Snake River 14.4 14.4 9 Dennett Creek-Snake River 2.1 3.1 5.2 10 Raft Creek-Snake River 6.4 20.9 27.3 11 Jackson Gulch-Snake River 3.4 3.4 13 Dukes Creek-Snake River 3.8 2.7 6.5 15 Herman Creek-Snake River 11.8 179.9 191.7

The next group of HUC-6 watersheds has CHTs that are considered moderately sensitive to change.

Moderate gradient headwaters (MH) are located in open, gentle, v-shaped valleys in the upper headwaters of drainages. The streams channels are small, confined, and have gentle gradients of 1% to 6%. The substrate in these channels consists of sand- to cobble-sized sediments.

Moderate, steep, narrow valley (MV) CHTs are small streams with gradients of 3 to 10% that occupy relatively straight, confined channels. MV channel habitat types are located in the mid- to upper parts of drainages and have a substrate of small cobbles and bedrock.

The response to change for MV and MH CHTs is moderate and localized. In non-forested areas, these CHTs are prone to down-cutting and erosion. CHTs in this condition may benefit from livestock control measures. Establishment of riparian vegetation along these stream channels may reduce downstream water temperature. Eight of the HUC 6 subwatersheds have MH and MV CHTs in addition to SV and VH (table 3-8). The Manual rates MH and MV CHTs as having moderate sensitivity to change.

3-57 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 3-8 Eight HUC 6s have CHTs rated as low and moderate sensitivity to change. Code HUC 6 name BC MM MH MV MC SV VH Ditch Total (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) Miles 6 Grouse Creek- 1.5 5.8 6.1 1.6 3.7 18.7 Snake River 8 Morgan Creek- 5.1 10.5 28.9 33 77.5 Snake River 12 Cottonwood 0.6 5.4 7.2 13.2 Creek-Snake River. 14 Oxbow Dam- 0.5 7.4 24.2 32.1 Snake River 16 McGraw Creek- 0.2 1.3 0.1 11.9 144.1 157.6 Snake River 17 Hells Canyon 0.3 3.1 131.7 135.1 Dam-Snake River 24 Upper North Pine 7.0 3.9 27.8 118.0 156.7 Creek 25 Lake Fork Creek 9.8 17.8 38.9 35.8 11.5 113.8

The next group of HUC 6 watersheds contains the highest diversity of CHTs. These subwatersheds have diverse terrain consisting of mountain slopes, steep hill sides, canyons and broad valleys.

Low gradient, large-floodplain (FP1) CHTs have slopes of 1% or less, are large channels, and occupy floodplains in broad valleys. The streams are sinuous and may have single or multiple channels. The substrate of these channels is composed of sand- to cobble-sized sediments. FP1 channels are the most responsive to change of all the CHTs. During high flow, these channels mobilize large amounts of sediment and are subject to lateral migration. Enhancement opportunities can be uncertain due to the possibility of lateral channel migration. Enhancement opportunities, therefore, are greater in smaller side channels where bank stability and shade can be improved. There are three streams in Pine Valley classified as FP1: Dry Creek, Clear Creek and Pine Creek.

Low gradient, medium floodplain (FP2) CHTs have slopes of less than 2% and are main-stem streams in broad valleys with established floodplains. These are large to medium steams with a substrate consisting of sand to cobble size sediments. Like FP1, FP2 CHTs have uncertain enhancement opportunities due to the likelihood of lateral channel migration. The only FP2 CHTs are located on Dry, Clear, and Pine Creeks in Pine Valley.

3-58 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Low gradient, small floodplain (FP3) CHTs have gradients of 2% or less and are small- to moderately-sized streams with moderately-confined to unconfined channels. These streams are located in valley bottoms and flat lowlands. The substrate consists of sand to small cobble-sized sediments. These streams are prone to some lateral migration. However, due to their small size they are more stable and make better candidates for habitat restoration than FP1 and FP2 streams. Projects that provide bank stabilization or habitat development can be successful. Beaver are often found in FP3 streams. The only streams in the assessment area with the FP3 CHT are located in Pine Valley.

An alluvial fan (AF) is a fan-shaped wedge of sediment deposited at the point where a steep mountain stream enters a gently sloping valley or floodplain. Stream channels on alluvial fans can have single or multiple channels and range in size from small to medium. Channel confinement is variable. The substrate consists of fine gravel to large cobble-sized sediments. The high sediment load typical of alluvial fan streams limits enhancement opportunities. There are 9.6 miles of stream channels located on alluvial fans in the project area: 2.6 miles in the Clear Creek HUC 6 in Pine Valley and seven miles in the Pine Tree Ridge Creek HUC 6 at the very south end of the assessment area.

Low gradient, moderately confined channels (LM) CHTs are main stem tributaries located in broad valleys in which the valley is much wider than the channel. A LM stream is medium to large, usually a single channel, with variable confinement, and has a gradient of less than 2%. The substrate consists of bedrock or fine, gravel-sized sediments. LM streams are considered good candidates for enhancement because they are not overly prone to lateral migration. LM CHTs types are located at the lower end of Benson Creek and in the tributaries that drain into and out of Pine Valley.

Low gradient, confined channels (LC) CHTs are confined, single channels with a gradient of less than 2%. The channels are confined either by high terraces or gently sloping landforms. They may also be bound on one side by hill slopes. The confinement can also be due to stream- channel incision in soft alluvial sediments. Stream size is usually medium to large and the substrate ranges from sand- to boulder-sized sediments. The channels are not highly responsive, so restoration projects may not yield intended results. However, the confined, stable nature of the LC channels makes them good candidates for improving riparian vegetation. In non-forested areas incised channels may benefit from livestock control measures.

Moderate gradient, moderately confined (MM) CHTs are single channels, with low to moderate sinuosity, occupying narrow valleys and having gradients of 2 to 4%. MM streams are usually medium to large in size and are located in the mid- to lower portions of drainages. These stream channels have multiple roughness elements (such as bedrock, large boulders, and woody debris) that create a variety of aquatic habitats. MM streams are good candidates for restoration because the presence of confining landforms improves the predictability of channel responses to activities

3-59 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment that affect channel form. Habitat diversity in these streams can often be enhanced by the addition of roughness elements such as woody debris or boulders. Beavers are found in smaller MM streams. MM CHTs are found in the major streams in the Brownlee Assessment area including Pine Creek, Lower Pine Creek, North Pine Creek and Clear Creek.

Moderate gradient, confined (MC) CHTs are confined, single, relatively straight channels that occupy narrow valleys with little to no floodplain. Stream size is variable and the stream gradients range from 2 to 4%, but can be as high as 6%. These streams occupy middle to lower positions in the drainage, and the substrate is coarse gravel or bedrock. The response of these streams to change is moderate and localized due to physical controls and channel confinement. MC channels are not good candidates for in-channel enhancements due to channel confinement. Enhancement of riparian vegetation can lower stream temperature. In non-forested areas these streams may benefit from livestock control measures if they are actively down-cutting. MC CHTs are located in several tributaries that drain into Pine Valley including Dry Creek.

3-60 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 3-9 Thirteen HUC 6 subwatersheds that contain CHTs rated as sensitive. Code HUC 6 name FP1 FP2 FP3 AF LM LC MM MC MH MV SV VH Ditch Total (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) (mi) 1 Road Gulch- 1.1 1.2 8 4.2 0.3 14.8 Snake River 2 Upper Birch 3.1 0.7 4.3 5.9 26.9 5.2 0.1 1.4 47.6 Creek 3 Love Reservoir 7.0 1.4 1.1 12.0 29.2 5.7 1.3 57.7 Creek 4 Lower Birch 7.5 5.3 4.9 10.3 12.9 0.5 11.8 53.2 Creek 5 Benson Creek 1.3 3.0 1.1 0.4 2.2 18.4 5.5 1.5 33.4 18 Upper Pine 1.2 2.4 0.2 4.3 1.7 1.5 8.7 25.2 71.3 5.9 122.4 Creek 19 McMullen 10.7 0.1 3.9 1.5 18.6 9.3 26.4 14.0 23.3 107.8 Slough 20 Clear Creek 3.5 3.0 1.6 2.6 0.1 6.1 7.2 9.8 39.7 23.7 1.9 99.2 21 East Pine Creek 1.2 6.2 4.5 1.3 1.3 2.1 5.6 21.1 60.5 30.8 7.9 142.5 22 Deer Creek-Pine 3.9 0.6 0.1 2.6 16.0 26.5 15.5 2.4 4.7 72.3 Creek 23 Fish Creek-Pine 1.5 5.7 0.5 3.1 1.9 5.3 38.5 42.2 19.2 1.2 119.8 Creek 26 Lower North 3.2 0.6 2.9 1.4 1.0 6.5 21.2 41.5 1.8 80.1 Pine Creek 27 Lower Pine 7.3 0.3 1.3 12.1 37.4 58.4 Creek

61 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Data Needs and Mapping Confidence

The underlying data set used to map the streams channels is the USGS National Hydrologic Data Set (NHD). These data do not show all the steeper-gradient first-order stream channels. However, these stream channels present modest opportunities for restoration and enhancement because they are confined and very steep.

The lower gradient streams are better represented in the NHD data set. In Pine Valley, the analyst refined the stream channel map using aerial photographs and water right decree maps, and by making site visits. Additional site visits to other portions of the watershed to field- verify CHTs would improve the mapping confidence.

Data Gaps

The CHT of low gradient streams should be verified by field investigations.

Conclusions

Much of the terrain in the Brownlee Subbasin is very steep; this is reflected in the dominance of CHTs with very steep headwaters (VH) and steep valleys (SV), which comprise 76% of the mapped stream network. These two CHTs are particularly dominant in the HUC 6 subwatersheds that line the Snake River Canyon. They provide limited opportunities for restoration due to the steep gradient and channel confinement.

The HUC 6 watersheds in Pine Valley have the most diversity of the CHTs in the study area. These HUC 6s contain streams that range from very steep headwaters to large, low gradient streams that occupy broad valleys. Due to the diversity of CHTs, this area likely has many opportunities for restoration and enhancement.

At the south end of the study area, Birch Creek and Benson Creek have low gradient CHTs that are responsive to change and are suitable for restoration and enhancement.

3-62

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

References

Oregon Department of Forestry, 2012, Fish Presence and Stream Size Data, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/gis_home.shtml

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2009, Oregon Geological Data Compilation Release 5 (Statewide), available on CD.

US Geological Survey, 2012, National Hydrologic Data Set, available online: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html

WPN, 1991, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board.

3-63

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 4 Hydrology and Water Use

Introduction

This chapter is “an overview of the natural hydrologic cycle and potential impacts of human activities. Alterations to the natural hydrologic cycle potentially cause increased peak flows and/or reduced low flows resulting in changes to water quality and aquatic ecosystems. The degree to which land use affects hydrologic processes depends on the location, extent and type of land use activities” (Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, WPN 1999). This chapter is about how climate produces water, how that water is processed through groundwater and streams, and how human activities influence the amount, location and timing of water flow and water use.

The Chapter is divided into two sections, Hydrology and Water Use. The materials and methods used in this analysis and the results of the analyses are described separately in each section. A discussion of the critical questions, data gaps and key findings is located at the end of this chapter. To provide background for Hydrology and Water Use the following information on Hydrologic Units, Climate, and Hydrography is included.

Hydrologic Units

The Manual methodology requires hydrology and water-use data to be analyzed, summarized and reported for two different types of hydrologic units discussed below: inter-agency watersheds also known as Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) and Oregon Water Availability Basins (WABs). The HUCs are explained in Chapter 1. The Manual assessment methodology is designed to be used for a single inter-agency 5th-level watershed; however, the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin is a larger 4th-level watershed. The Manual also states that data for the hydrology discussion should be analyzed and summarized by inter-agency 6th-level watershed. Some of the data for the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment is summarized by the smaller 7th-level watershed for clarity.

Interagency Watersheds Classification System - The Interagency Watershed Classification System (table 4-1), has six levels and names for the hierarchical system. The 7th level was added for the purposes of this assessment. The example columns in table 4-1 show how the McMullen Slough subwatershed fits into the classification system. The 369,983-acre assessment area includes most of the Oregon portion of the Brownlee Subbasin, twenty seven HUC6 subwatersheds, and one hundred and twenty HUC7 drainages.

4-64

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-1 Interagency Watershed Classification System. Level of Names for Examples of HUC Examples of HUC Square Number of Hierarchy Levels Names for the Codes (short code) Miles Watersheds Assessment Area in Assessment Area 1 Region Pacific Northwest 17 HUC1 2 Subregion Middle Snake 1705 36,700 HUC2 3 Basin Middle Snake - 170502 4,100 HUC3 Powder 4 Subbasin Brownlee 17050201 914 1 HUC4 5 Watershed Pine Creek 1705020106 306 5 HUC5 6 Subwatershed McMullen Slough 170502010602 27 HUC6 (19) 7 Drainage Upper Sag Creek 170502010602 120 HUC7 (19E)

Watersheds (HUC 5) - Table 4-2 lists the five watersheds in the assessment area. A pure watershed is a headwater drainage basin. A composite watershed receives water from one or more pure and/or composite watersheds. A pour point is the location at which water flows out of a watershed. Map 4.1 shows the boundaries of these watersheds, including the Idaho portions that are not analyzed in this assessment. Table 4-2 Watershed codes and names. HUC 5 HUC 5 Name Composite HUC5 Acreage in Code or Pure Assessment Area 17050201-02 Birch Creek – Snake River composite 66,853 17050201-03 Rock Creek – Snake River composite 52,244 Brownlee Creek – Snake composite 17050201-04 8,956 River 17050201-06 Pine Creek pure 193,536 17050201-07 Indian Creek – Snake River composite 48,394 Total Acres 369,983

Subwatersheds (HUC 6) - Table 4-4 is a list of the twenty seven subwatersheds in the assessment area. The table shows the official 12-number (hyphen added for easier reading) subwatershed code, a two-number short code used in this assessment, the official name (except for Love Reservoir Creek, which was changed from Pine Tree Ridge Creek because the drainage below Pine Tree Ridge, a HUC 7, is not the main channel), plus a list of drainages within each subwatershed. Map 4.1 also shows the boundaries of subwatersheds, including the Idaho portions not addressed in the assessment.

4-65

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Drainages (HUC 7) - Drainages (or HUC 7 watersheds) were delineated to allow data analysis, summary and discussion for smaller named drainages, especially those along the Snake River canyon and in more developed areas (map 4.2). To simplify the watershed codes for this assessment, the 12-number codes for subwatersheds (HUC 6s) were replaced with numbers between 01 and 27, and Drainages (HUC 7) were assigned letter codes (A, B, etc). Table A4.1 (appendix 4.1) shows the codes and names of these drainages (HUC 7).

Table 4-3 Subwatershed codes and names. HUC HUC 6 HUC 6 Codes for HUC 7 HUC 6 6 HUC 6 Name Compos Acreage in Watersheds within HUC6s Code Short ite Assessment (See Table HU-2b)

Code or Pure Area 17050201- 01 Road Gulch – Snake 5,440 01C, 01D C 0201 River 17050201- 02 17,698 02A, 02B, 02C, 02D, 02E, Upper Birch Creek pure 0202 02F 17050201- 03 14,053 03A, 03B, 03C, 03D Love Reservoir Creek C 0203 17050201- 04 13,460 04A, 04B, 04C, 04D, 04E Lower Birch Creek C 0204 17050201- 05 10,897 05A, 05B, 05C Benson Creek pure 0205 17050201- 06 Grouse Creek – Snake 5,305 06A, 06B, 06C C 0206 River 17050201- 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake 5,780 07A, 07B C 0301 River 17050201- 08 Morgan Creek – Snake 26,673 08A, 08B, 08C, 08D, 08F, C 0303 River 08G 17050201- 09 Dennett Creek – Snake 2,980 09F C 0304 River 17050201- 10 Raft Creek – Snake 13,549 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 10G C 0306 River 17050201- 11 Jackson Gulch – 3,262 11A, 11C C 0307 Snake River 17050201- 12 Cottonwood Creek – 5,624 12A, 12C, 12E C 0401 Snake River 17050201- 13 Dukes Creek – Snake 3,332 13C C 0403 River 17050201- 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake 8,740 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 14F C 0701 River 17050201- 15 Herman Creek – Snake 15,680 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E, C 0703 River 15F 17050201- 16 McGraw Creek – 12,713 16A, 16B, 16C, 16E, 16H C 0704 Snake River 17050201- 17 Hells Canyon Dam – 11,261 17A, 17C, 17D, 17E C 0705 Snake River

4-66

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-3 Subwatershed codes and names. HUC HUC 6 HUC 6 Codes for HUC 7 HUC 6 6 HUC 6 Name Compos Acreage in Watersheds within HUC6s Code Short ite Assessment (See Table HU-2b)

Code or Pure Area 17050201- 18 21,875 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D, 18E, Upper Pine Creek pure 0601 18F 17050201- 19 19,246 19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E, McMullen Slough pure 0602 19F 17050201- 20 19,631 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20E, Clear Creek pure 0603 20F 17050201- 21 25,701 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D, 21E, East Pine Creek pure 0605 21F, 21G, 21H 17050201- 22 Deer Creek – Pine 16,649 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D, 22E, C 0604 Creek 22F 17050201- 23 Fish Creek – Pine 23,836 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, C 0606 Creek 23F 17050201- 24 Upper North Pine 19,007 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D pure 0607 Creek 17050201- 25 19,963 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25E, Lake Fork Creek pure 0608 25F 17050201- 26 Lower North Pine 16,104 26A, 26B, 26C, 26D, 26E C 0609 Creek 17050201- 27 11,524 27A, 27B, 27C, 27D Lower Pine Creek C 0610 Total 369,983

Acres

Water Availability Basins and OWRD Classification System - The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) has delineated Water Availability Basins (WABs) throughout the state as part of its methodology for determining if water is available for new water-right applications for water use from streams. Table A4.2 (appendix 4.1) shows WAB identification numbers (IDs) and names by drainage (HUC7) for the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin.

Boundaries and Delineation Criteria - Map 4.3 shows the boundaries and IDs (codes) for WABs in the assessment area. OWRD did not create WABs for many of the small intermittent and ephemeral drainages along the Snake River; these areas were excluded by the OWRD because they have insufficient stream flow for water rights and/or there have been no water-right applications requiring creation of a WAB. Pour points of WABs were delineated wherever OWRD wanted to evaluate water availability. For example, the 45,200-acre Birch Creek and 10,900-acre Benson Creek watersheds are single WABs. In contrast, the 290,000-acre Pine Creek watershed has been divided into 20 WABs. The Pine Creek WAB includes data from all upstream WABs.

4-67

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

WAB Model Outputs - For each WAB pour point, the analysis provides estimates of: (1) mean monthly natural stream flow for 50% and 80% exceedance; (2) expected stream flow after subtracting estimated consumptive water use; and (3) net water available for appropriation after subtracting reservations of water and in-stream flow requirements. Net water availability is reported as mean monthly stream flow in cubic feet per second and annual volume in acre feet.

Climate

The climate of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin is described by the following factors: precipitation (rain and snow), air temperature, percent humidity, wind speed, percent sunshine, percent cloudy days, and evaporation. These factors affect hydrology and water use. Monthly and annual temperature, precipitation and snowfall data were collected at Brownlee Dam, Cornucopia, Halfway, and Huntington (WRCC 2012a) and Schneider Meadows (NRCS 2012). The Morgan Mountain Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) (Western Regional Climate Center 2012b) was for calendar year 2010, and includes no snow data.

Average Annual Precipitation Map - Map A4.1 (appendix 4.2) shows average annual precipitation in inches for the assessment area. The boundaries between the colored bands are isohyetal lines, that is, lines of equal precipitation. The numbers inside the colored bands are inches of precipitation for the lower boundary of the bands based on comparison with climate station data. Precipitation ranges from about 13 inches in the Farewell Bend area to 69 inches at Red Mountain at the head of Middle Fork Pine Creek.

Snowpack and Sublimation - Average annual snowpack depth ranges from a minimum of 1 to 3 inches along the Snake River to 60 inches at Cornucopia (WRCC 2012a). In the last 10 years snow depth reached eight feet at Cornucopia. Schneider Meadows had a maximum of 78 inches in 2012 (NRCS 2012). Snow depth is deeper in sheltered areas at higher elevations.

A study at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed in Idaho found up to 1.65 inches of sublimation from exposed snowpack sites and up to 0.65 inches of sublimation from sheltered snowpack sites (Reba, Pomeroy, Marks and Link 2011). Sublimation is the transition of a substance from a solid to gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Therefore, snowpack sublimation means water is lost to the atmosphere before the snow melts.

Sunshine and Cloudy Days -This information is available for Halfway and Huntington, as percent by month, at http://www.city-data.com, in graphical format (table 4-4). Table 4-4 Sunny days for Halfway and Hines, Oregon Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Halfway 12 14 19 20 21 23 27 26 24 20 12 11 Huntington 12 14 19 20 22 23 27 26 24 22 14 12

4-68

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Evaporation Pan Data and Evaporation from Free Water Surfaces - Evaporation pan data for sites in northeast Oregon and western Idaho were used to calculate annual evaporation rates for the assessment area. Data for the Malheur, Pendleton, Union, Parma and Emmett stations were obtained from a document (author unknown) provided through the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC 2005). Reynolds Creek experimental watershed data were obtained from a professional paper (Hanson, Marks and Van Vactor 2001). The evaporation pan data sites closest to the assessment area are at the Malheur branch experiment station in Oregon, and the Parma and Emmett experiment stations in Idaho. The Reynolds Creek data represents the higher elevation rangelands of the assessment area; this experimental watershed is located 60 miles south southwest of the assessment area.

The percent mean monthly evaporation for Moscow, Idaho (north of the assessment area) and Pocatello, Idaho (east of the assessment are) are listed in table 4-5. These are the closest stations to the assessment area in the national study (NOAA 1982). The study produced two national free-water-surface evaporation maps: May-October and Annual. A value of seven inches was established as the minimum November-April evaporation rate. Maps in NOAA 1982 were unreadable; clips of maps for the assessment area were found in a web publication (University of Idaho 2012). Table 4-5 Percent mean monthly evaporation from free water surfaces (Table 3, NOAA 1982). Site Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (in.) Idaho – Moscow – 6.8 12.0 14.1 19.3 17.7 11.6 6.0 45.25 % evaporation by month Idaho – Pocatello – 1.6 2.3 5.8 8.1 11.9 14.5 19.1 15.1 10.5 6.5 2.9 1.7 60.98 % evaporation by month

The map in University of Idaho 2012 indicates annual evaporation in the assessment area ranges from about 30 inches in the mountains north of Pine Valley to about 43 inches near Farewell Bend. The national map does not consider local topography and climate variability in the assessment area, which ranges from 2,080 feet at Farewell Bend, to 1,680 feet at Hells Canyon Dam, to 9,566 feet on Red Mountain in Middle Fork Pine Creek. Evaporation from Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon Reservoirs is near 43 inches per year. Adjusted calculations for evaporation pan data at the Emmett, Malheur and Parma sites substantiate this, using a coefficient of 69% for evaporation pan data (from coefficient map in University of Idaho 2012) plus adding 14% of measured April-October evaporation for missing data (from Pocatello site): Emmett (44 in.); Malheur (44 in.); and Parma: (41 in.).

Effects of Recent Climate Warming on Snowpack and Streamflow- A study of climate change at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed (Nayak, Marks, Chandler and Seyfried 2010) reported the following results:

4-69

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

“Forty-five water years (1962–2006) of carefully measured temperature, precipitation, snow, and stream-flow data for valley bottom, mid-elevation, and high-elevation sites within the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, located in the state of Idaho, United States, were analyzed to evaluate the extent and magnitude of the impact of climate warming on the hydrology and related resources in the interior northwestern United States. This analysis shows significant trends of increasing temperature at all elevations, with larger increases in daily minimum than daily maximum. The proportion of snow to rain has decreased at all elevations, with the largest and most significant decreases at mid-elevations and low elevations. Maximum seasonal snow water equivalent has decreased at all elevations, again with the most significant decreases at lower elevations, where the length of the snow season has decreased by nearly a month. All trends show a significant elevation gradient in either timing or magnitude. Though inter-annual variability is large, there has been no significant change in water year total precipitation or stream flow. Stream flow shows a seasonal shift, stronger at high elevations and delayed at lower elevations, to larger winter and early spring flows and reduced late spring and summer flows.”

More specifically, during the 45-year period, average minimum air temperatures increased 2.9 to 4.6◦F, and average maximum air temperatures increased 1.6 to 2.8◦F.

Short-term Climate Cycles (El Niños and La Niñas) - The climate of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin is strongly affected by Pacific Ocean conditions that produce one-to-three-year-long climate cycles referred to as El Niños and La Niñas. El Niño years are warmer and drier; La Niña years are cooler and wetter. Note that a strong year is never followed by another strong year. Rain-on-snow events are more numerous in La Niña years, such as 2010, but severe rain- on-snow events can also occur in El Niño years such as the January 1, 1997 severe flood in the Pine Creek watershed.

Long-term Climate Cycles and Related Events - Long-term climate cycles provide some perspective regarding the status quo of our current climate and what the future will bring. Some facts are presented below for the reader who wants to learn more about long-term climate history of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin and current climate studies.

(1) 2,600,000-year Ice Age: Earth entered an ice age 2.6-million years ago, the assessment area climate changes with the glacial and interglacial cycles of this ice age (Gradstein, Felix, et al. 2004).

(2) 100,000-year Glacial Cycles: Analysis of the Vostok Antarctica ice core found that our planet, and by inference the glaciated uplands of Pine Creek, have experienced four glacial maximums during the past 420,000 years, spaced about 100,000 years apart. (Petit, et al. 1999).

4-70

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

(3) Abrupt Climate Change at the End of the Last Glacial Period: “The Greenland Summit warmed [16 +/- 5◦F] over a period of several decades, beginning 14,672 years ago,” which began glacial melting and retreat in North America (Severinghaus 1999), including Upper Pine Creek.

(4) Lake Bonneville Flood: Melting of glaciers in the Great Basin contributed to the Lake Bonneville Flood through the assessment area 14,300 years ago (Idaho State University 2012).

(5) Pre-historic Glacial Advances: Glacial maximums in the Wallowa Mountains have been dated to 21,000, 17,000 and 2,000 years ago; dated glacial maximums in the Oregon Cascades that could represent other maximums in the assessment area are 8,000 and 5,000 years ago (PSU 2012). Glaciers in North America also advanced during the Little Ice Age (1350-1850 AD); this would have increased the volume and area of late summer snowfields in Pine Creek. Undocumented volcanic eruptions around the planet are believed to be the cause of the Little Ice Age (Parry 2012).

(6) Atmospheric Cooling by Volcanic Eruptions: Eruptions of Mt Tambora in Indonesia (1815) and Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines (1991) cooled the climate of the assessment area for a few years after each event (NASA 2012). There was an unusual four-month long snowpack in mid-elevation valleys in 1991-1992 and cooler than normal summers through 1993 (observations by Bliss). The eruption of Mt Mazama 7,700 years ago (USGS 2002) left a two-foot-deep blanket of volcanic ash across the assessment area and would have cooled the climate for many years.

(7) Disappearance of Wallowa Mountain Glaciers: The warm interglacial climate has melted all glaciers from Upper Pine Creek. Small perennial snow fields persist in late summer in Upper Pine Creek above an elevation of about 7500 feet. Benson Glacier below Eagle Cap Peak, located eight miles northwest of the assessment area, the last glacier in the Wallowa Mountains, is melting toward extinction (PSU 2012).

(8) The Endpoint of This Interglacial Is Uncertain: Prehistoric interglacials have lasted 10,000 to 30,000 years. The current interglacial period has lasted for 14,000 years (Severinghaus 1999). The 100,000-year glacial cycle graph suggests our planet is near the onset of another glacial period. Some scientists calculate this warm interglacial could end in as little as 1,500 years if the natural conditions that created it function normally,

such as atmospheric CO2 remaining below 240 ppmv (Tzedakis, et al. 2012). Because current CO2 concentration is 385 ppmv and is expected to remain high from use of fossil fuels, some scientists believe the natural onset of the next glacial period will be delayed. Scientists studying snowmelt elevations in the nearby Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed report a 45-year-long warming trend (Nayak, Marks, Chandler and Seyfried

4-71

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

2010), whereas atmospheric scientists report that our planet’s climate has been cooling

since 1999 despite high CO2 levels due to cooling of the middle troposphere (Geograft 2012).

Hydrography

Hydrography is most simply defined as “the mapping of bodies of water” or “the scientific description and analysis of the physical conditions, boundaries, flow, and related characteristics of the earth's surface waters” (The American Heritage Dictionary 2009). Natural and altered hydrographies influence both hydrology and water use in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin.

Official Hydrography Maps - The “official” hydrography of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin is shown on 7.5-minute (1:24,000 scale; 2.64-inch/mile) US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and on state and federal agency maps and Geographic Information System (GIS) products based in USGS data. Unfortunately, there are errors in hydrography and missing hydrography on these maps in Pine Valley, Birch Creek, Benson Creek, as well as in forested and subalpine areas. The largest numbers of map errors in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin are in the McMullen Slough subwatershed in Pine Valley (Bliss 2004 and personal knowledge). The Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin assessment used the National Hydrologic Data set as the base layer. This was modified for Pine Valley using aerial photography, field observation and the water right decree maps. Many small springs, and small intermittent and perennial streams in higher elevation forestlands and subalpine grasslands are not shown on official maps, such as in upper Boulder Creek (Bliss 2009).

The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) has published large-scale (1:240,000) hydrography maps for each of its watermaster basins. The Grande Ronde, Powder and Malheur River Basin maps provide hydrography information for Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. These maps can be accessed through the OWRD website; titles and publishing date are listed below:

Grande Ronde Drainage Basin, Oregon. Map No.8.6 (date: 1-1-1975) Malheur River Drainage Basin, Oregon. Map No. 10.6 (date: 1-1-1983) Powder Drainage Basin, Oregon. Map No. 9.6 (date: 1-1-1992)

Natural Hydrography - On USGS, USFS, BLM and OWRD maps, natural hydrography is shown as lakes, wetlands, springs, and intermittent and perennial streams. Only the larger springs and streams are shown on these maps.

Altered Hydrography - The most common examples of altered hydrography shown on official maps are large reservoirs, and long canals or ditches used for irrigation and to deliver water to reservoirs. Only a few irrigation canals and ditches in the assessment area are shown on 1:240,000 and 1:100,000 scale maps, such as the OWRD Powder Drainage Basin map; more but

4-72

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment not all of them are shown on 1:24,000 scale maps. Altered hydrography typically not shown on official maps are: bridges and culverts, smaller reservoirs and their dams, smaller irrigation diversion dams, canals and ditches, intermittent and small perennial streams intercepted by small irrigation canals and ditches, roadside ditches that extend the drainage network including interception of ephemeral, intermittent and small perennial streams, and gully networks in low and high elevation rangelands.

Examples of Altered Hydrography (small-scale maps) – Some examples of the altered hydrography in the assessment area are shown on maps A4.3 through A4.9 in Appendix 4.2; map A4.2 is an index map of these locations. The map of upper Boulder Creek gullies and incised channels (map A4.3) shows an area where grazing by sheep in the late 19th and early 20th centuries reduced ground cover sufficiently to allow accelerated runoff to develop an extensive network of gullies in stream channels and uplands in the upper one-fourth of the watershed. Ground cover remains below desired condition (about 65%) in about 40% of the subalpine rangelands. Intense summer rainfall on this area produces flash floods and high sediment transport to Pine Creek.

Map A4.4 of the Cornucopia Highway ditches and the Moore Ditch show seven ditch segments along the Cornucopia Highway that function as ephemeral or intermittent stream channels. These ditches deliver water to intermittent and perennial streams, and to Moore Ditch during snowmelt and intense rainfall.

The Posey Valley Ditch (map A4.5) intercepts many small perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams in the McMullen Slough subwatershed as it delivers water to irrigated fields, livestock and Laird Reservoir. Four intercepted streams are shown on the map. The ditch diverts water from Pine Creek yearlong for livestock, and April through October for irrigation and October through April for storage in Laird Reservoir.

An earth dam (map A4.6) in upper Birch Creek diverts the creek yearlong into and through a canal under Malheur Line Road to Kivett Reservoir #3 for storage (October through April) and from the ditch and through the reservoir for irrigation (April through October). The canal intercepts water from an intermittent stream channel. Birch Creek and tributaries are channelized through Birch Creek Meadow (map A4.7) for irrigation and drainage purposes. An earth dam in lower Birch Creek (map A4.8) diverts the creek yearlong into and through a canal to Vane Ranch Reservoir and Love Reservoir for storage (October through April) and from the canal for irrigation (April through October). On Water Right Certificate 20605 (OWRD) it was identified as Love and Jacobson Canal; on water-right permit SW-614 it was identified as Big Hamilton Ditch. The canal also intercepts runoff from nine ephemeral and three intermittent streams.

4-73

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4.9 shows the culverts, ditches and gullies along Interstate 84. Construction of the 13,000-foot-long section of I-84 southeast of the Snake River on an unnamed tributary of Wheel Gulch required many cuts, fills, culverts, and ditches. Gullies have developed below all culverts and along the base of the fill material where water is routed to culverts.

Hydrology

The OWEB Watershed Assessment Manual (Manual) hydrologic analysis methodology recommends summary and evaluation of: (1) general watershed characteristics; (2) types of land use; (3) annual peak flow, low flow, and flood history; (4) forest canopy reduction in rain-on- snow areas; (5) runoff depth in agricultural land and range land; (6) forest-rural road density; (7) percent impervious surface in urban-rural residential areas; and (8) hydrologic issues, all reported by subwatersheds (HUC 6).

The Manual also includes Critical Questions and Assumptions:

Critical Questions 1. What land uses are present in your watershed? 2. What is the flood history in your watershed? 3. Is there a probability that land uses in the basin have a significant effect on peak flows? 4. Is there a probability that land uses in the basin have a significant effect on low flows?

Assumptions  Urbanization (including industrial use), agriculture, range-land use, and forestry are the primary land uses that may impact hydrology.  Peak flows and low flows are the hydrologic processes most significantly impacted by land use activities.  Hydrologic soil condition is an indicator of infiltration rate.  Groundwater impacts are implicitly addressed through changes in infiltration rates.  In forested basins, the greatest potential for peak-flow increases over background conditions are due to road rerouting of water and changes in snow accumulation and melt in harvested areas during rain-on-snow events.  The decreased evaporation and transpiration from tree removal more than offsets the reduced infiltration; therefore, low flows tend to increase in the short term due to forest harvesting.

4-74

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate peak-flow impacts will also mitigate low-flow impacts from agricultural and urban land uses.  Impervious surfaces and roads are good indicators of urbanization and subsequent impacts to the hydrology of a watershed.

Materials and Methods

General watershed characteristics – This information was derived using Arc GIS 3-D spatial analysis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration precipitation data and Natural Resource Conservation Service vegetation data (table 4-6). Mean elevation was obtained from digital elevation models using ArcGIS 3-D spatial analysis. Maximum and minimum elevation was determined from topographic maps, and the maximum elevation of the Snake River reservoirs was used as the minimum elevation of tributary streams.

Table 4-6 Summary of GIS map layers used in the hydrology chapter. Name Source Publication Date BLM Bureau of Land Management 2012 Secondary http://www.blm.gov/or/gis/data-details.php?data=ds000041 Roads Land Cover National Resource Conservation Service (by state) 2006 http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/ Level IV U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Ecoregion http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/or_eco.htm Map of Oregon National United States Geological Survey 2011 Hydrologic http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Data Set (Stream network) Oregon Oregon Water Resources Department, data provided by the Unknown Water Department’s GIS specialist. Availability Basins Precipitation National Resource Conservation Service 2007 http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/ Water Oregon Water Resources Department 2012 Rights http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/MAPS/index.aspx#Water_Ri ght_Data_GIS_Themes

4-75

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Types of land use – Land use was determined using the United States Department of Agriculture database.

Annual peak flow, low flow, and flood history – Flow information was derived from various sources including gaging station information. Flood history, both ancient and modern, was derived from archaeological research and gaging records.

Forest canopy reduction in rain-on-snow areas – Effects from reduction in canopy closure was derived from comparison of historic canopy cover with current information.

Runoff depth in agricultural land and range land – The OWEB Manual 15-step process for assessing effects of agricultural activities and livestock grazing was used for this analysis.

Forest-rural road density – Road density was derived using ArcGIS to evaluate information from Forest Service and BLM databases.

Percent impervious surface in urban-rural residential areas – The impervious surfaces calculation includes roofs, sidewalks, cement bridges, paved roads and parking lots, plus low hydraulic conductivity surfaces including gravel and native surface roads and parking lots.

Results

General Watershed Characteristics – Table 4-7, General Watershed Characteristics of HUC 6 Watersheds, describes the twenty seven subwatersheds in the assessment area. The table includes the following information: area in square miles, stream miles, water body area of tributaries, and water body areas of the three Snake River reservoirs (Oregon side). (Note: stream miles for four subwatersheds [15, 16, 17 and 24] are too large; the stream map for that area appears to be based on a very dense hydrography layer). Precipitation isopluvial lines are shown on map A4.1 (appendix 4.2). Forest cover is shown on map A4.10 of land cover (Appendix 4.2).

4-76

Table 4-7 General Watershed Characteristics of HUC6 Watersheds.

HUC6 HUC 6 Name HUC6 Stream Snake Mean Min. Max. Min. Max. Non- Forest Short Area Length River Elev. Elev. Elev. Ave. Ave. Forest Cover

Body

Total

Pure/

River River

Area: Area:

Snake Snake

Comp

Water Water

(acres) (miles) Tribs (acres) (acres) (feet) (feet) (feet) Pcpt. Pcpt. Cover (%)

Code (note 1) (acres) (in.) (in.) (%) 01 Road Gulch – Snake River C 5,440 14.8 1.1 714.7 715.8 2592 2080 3301 13 14 99.3 0.7 02 Upper Birch Creek P 17,698 47.4 26.0 0.0 26.0 4213 3288 4651 18 20 99.9 < 0.1 03 Love Reservoir Creek C 14,053 57.8 121.7 0.0 121.7 2934 2152 3460 13 14 100.0 0.0 04 Lower Birch Creek C 13,460 52.4 10.3 0.0 10.3 3148 2080 4300 13 18 100.0 0.0 05 Benson Creek P 10,897 33.4 17.0 0.0 17.0 3062 2080 4300 13 18 100.0 0.0 06 Grouse Creek – Snake River C 5,305 18.8 1130.7 1130.7 2382 2080 3630 13 16 99.9 < 0.1 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake River C 5,780 14.5 0.3 1199.3 1199.7 2995 2080 5063 15 17 99.9 < 0.1 08 Morgan Creek – Snake River C 26,673 77.6 0.1 1459.6 1459.7 4229 2080 6133 14 34 80.1 19.9 09 Dennett Creek – Snake River C 2,980 5.2 0.1 1263.1 1263.2 2966 2080 4589 15 19 99.3 0.7 10 Raft Creek – Snake River C 13,549 27.3 1.0 2378.6 2379.6 3601 2080 5883 15 31 87.4 12.6 11 Jackson Gulch – Snake River C 3,262 3.4 0.4 1243.1 1243.5 2871 2080 3928 17 21 99.3 0.7 Cottonwood Creek – Snake 12 C 5,624 13.2 0.5 1890.0 1890.5 2861 2080 4012 16 21 99.8 River 0.2 13 Dukes Creek – Snake River C 3,332 6.5 1234.1 1234.1 2983 2080 3897 17 21 98.9 1.1 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake River C 8,740 32.2 1108.2 1108.2 2785 1805 4935 16 25 88.9 11.1 15 Herman Creek – Snake River C 15,680 * 194.5 1.6 1028.0 1029.5 3147 1680 5460 15 43 74.0 26.0 16 McGraw Creek – Snake River C 12,713 * 157.7 0.1 607.2 607.4 4313 1680 6001 17 43 61.7 38.3 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake 17 C 11,261 * 270.1 665.7 665.7 4065 1680 6197 17 43 50.4 River 49.6 18 Upper Pine Creek P 21,875 * 121.8 86.9 0.0 86.9 5419 2565 9556 21 69 36.0 64.0 19 McMullen Slough P 19,246 97.1 16.5 0.0 16.5 3777 2565 5680 21 48 69.0 31.0 20 Clear Creek P 19,631 97.0 54.3 0.0 54.3 4688 2438 7980 20 64 28.7 71.3 21 East Pine Creek P 25,701 * 143.2 12.9 0.0 12.9 4291 2410 7423 20 60 36.8 63.2 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek C 16,649 72.4 30.1 0.0 30.1 3055 2410 3886 20 22 98.6 1.4 23 Fish Creek – Pine Creek C 23,836 * 119.9 0.8 0.0 0.8 4191 2239 6980 20 60 77.2 22.8 24 Upper North Pine Creek P 19,007 * 156.6 48.9 0.0 48.9 5333 3180 6480 20 49 16.5 83.5 25 Lake Fork Creek P 19,963 * 113.9 149.0 0.0 149.0 6008 3180 7508 30 63 13.5 86.5 26 Lower North Pine Creek C 16,104 80.1 0.0 0.0 4423 2239 5740 20 49 43.9 56.1 27 Lower Pine Creek C 11,524 58.4 18.7 18.7 3818 1680 4950 16 33 70.8 29.2 Note 1: High stream mileage may be based on a very dense hydrography layer developed by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Types of land use – Land uses include: grazing; forestry; grass, hay and grain production; orchards and gardens; mining; urban and rural residential; dispersed and developed recreation sites; railroad, highways, local roads, bridges and culverts; dams, reservoirs, irrigation diversions, ditches and pipelines; ground-water wells; electronic sites and telephone lines; and hydroelectric power generators, power lines and substations. A new wind power site is located above Lime on Morgan Mountain near the assessment boundary.

Summary of Land Cover Types in the Assessment Area – Table 4-8 shows 14 land-cover types, by acreage and percent, for the assessment area. The acreages in table 4-8 are derived from NRCS 2006 GIS land cover data set described in table 4-6. Also see map A4.10 (appendix 4.2) which shows land cover types by subwatershed (HUC 6). Small polygon and line features come into view as the maps is enlarged. The dominant land-cover types are: shrub/scrub (43.9%), evergreen forest (33.5%), herbaceous (14.8%), hay/pasture/cropland (4.4%) and open water (2.3%); the remaining 1.1% comprises nine land-cover types. Shrub/scrub includes tall shrub communities and sagebrush-grass rangeland. Herbaceous is grass-forb and forb communities. Table 4-8 Percent land cover in the assessment area. Land Cover Type Acres by Land Percent (%) of Cover Type Assessment Area Open Water 8,370 2.26 Developed, Open Space 2,421 0.65 Developed, Low Intensity 499 0.14 Developed, Medium Intensity 109 0.03 Developed, High Intensity 1 0.0002 Barren Land 1000 0.27 Deciduous Forest 9 0.002 Evergreen Forest 123,944 33.49 Shrub/Scrub 162,524 43.91 Herbaceous 54,680 14.77 Hay/Pasture (includes cultivated 1,245 0.34 crops) Cultivated Crops (mostly 14,953 4.04 hay/pasture) Woody Wetlands 54 0.02 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 290 0.08 TOTALS 370,099 100.00

The total of shrub/scrub and herbaceous (58.7%) comprises non-forest rangelands, the dominant cover type of the assessment area. Evergreen forest (33.5%) is the second largest cover type, and includes forested rangelands. Agricultural use comprises 4.4% and open water is 2.3%.

4-78

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Please note that the hay/pasture and cultivated crop land cover types are inaccurately mapped in many areas based on comparison of maps with Google Earth imagery and site inspection.

 Example 1 (Farewell Bend area): the land cover type southwest of the interstate highway is hay/pasture, but site inspection and Google Earth imagery shows cultivated alfalfa and/or grain.  Example 2 (Hibbard Creek): the land cover type is hay/pasture, but site inspection and Google Earth imagery shows cultivated grain and/or hay.  Example 3 (Pine Valley): about 95% of Pine Valley irrigated land is shown as cultivated crop land, but site inspection and Google Earth imagery shows a large percent to be non- cultivated hay/pasture.

Major Land Cover Types by subwatershed – Table 4-9 shows percent land cover type by HUC6 for the five major land-cover types discussed above, which comprise 98.9% of the assessment area.

Table 4-9 Percent cover of the five major land cover types by subwatershed (>1% cover). Numbers highlighted in red include the Hells Canyon Complex reservoirs. % % % % % % Other HUC 6 HUC 6 Herb Shrub/ Forest Crops Open Short HUC 6 Name Acres ceous Scrub Land Hay & Water Code Range Range Pasture Land Land

01 Road Gulch – Snake River 5,440 39.9 44.1 0.7 0.0 13.1 02 Upper Birch Creek 17,698 3.0 94.8 < 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.1 03 Love Reservoir Creek 14,053 48.8 49.3 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.8 04 Lower Birch Creek 13,460 27.3 70.3 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.2 05 Benson Creek 10,897 13.6 83.1 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.6 06 Grouse Creek – Snake River 5,305 23.2 62.1 < 0.1 2.6 21.2 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 5,780 28.9 61.9 < 0.1 0.4 20.7 08 Morgan Creek – Snake River 26,673 18.0 58.3 19.9 0.5 5.5 09 Dennett Creek – Snake River 2,980 39.3 38.7 0.7 0.1 42.8 10 Raft Creek – Snake River 13,549 25.4 52.4 12.6 0.0 17.5 11 Jackson Gulch – Snake River 3,262 22.0 57.7 0.7 0.0 38.1 12 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 5,624 29.9 50.9 0.2 0.0 33.5 13 Dukes Creek – Snake River 3,332 25.6 57.9 1.1 0.0 37.2 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 8,740 35.2 43.6 11.1 0.0 12.6 15 Herman Creek – Snake River 15,680 33.6 36.6 26.0 0.2 0.0 16 McGraw Creek – Snake River 12,713 18.8 40.6 38.3 0.0 0.0 17 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 11,261 23.6 23.9 49.6 0.0 0.0 18 Upper Pine Creek 21,875 12.4 12.7 64.0 6.0 0.4 4.5

4-79

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

19 McMullen Slough 19,246 1.0 41.0 31.0 23.9 0.1 3.0 20 Clear Creek 19,631 4.3 5.3 71.3 17.5 0.3 1.3 21 East Pine Creek 25,701 2.2 23.0 63.2 10.8 0.1 0.7 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 16,649 4.1 81.5 1.4 12.4 0.2 0.4 23 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23,836 5.4 68.6 22.8 2.6 0.0 0.6 24 Upper North Pine Creek 19,007 1.0 14.1 83.5 0.0 0.3 1.1 25 Lake Fork Creek 19,963 4.3 8.7 86.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 26 Lower North Pine Creek eek 16,104 10.7 32.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 27 Lower Pine Creek 11,524 18.7 50.7 29.2 0.0 0.0 1.4

Peak Flows, Low Flows and Flood History – The stream gages located within or near the assessment area are shown in Table 4-10. The Robinette gage on the Powder River was inoperable due to inundation by Brownlee Reservoir. Therefore, flow at the Robinette gage was estimated by summing flow from three gages (Powder River near Richland, Eagle Creek at Richland and Daley Creek below diversion). Table 4-10 Stream gages within or near the assessment area. Stream Gage Name Gage Period of Current Gage Gage Within (upstream to downstream) Number Record Manager Assessment Area

Snake River at Weiser. ID 13269000 1910-2012 USGS No Burnt River at Huntington, OR 13275000 1928-1932 OWRD & No 1956-1959 Idaho Power 1962-2012 Powder River near Robinette, OR 13289500 1928-1957 historic No Powder River near Richland. OR 13286700 1957-2012 Idaho Power No Eagle Creek above Skull Creek nr New 13288200 1957-2012 Idaho Power No Bridge, OR Eagle Creek at Richland, OR 13288300 1999-2012 Idaho Power No Daley Creek above diversion near Richland 13289010 2009-2012 Idaho Power No Daley Creek below diverion near Richland 13289030 2009-2012 Idaho Power No Brownlee Res at Brownlee Dam, OR-ID 13289700 1958-2012 Idaho Power Yes Snake River at Brownlee, ID 13289720 2002-2012 Idaho Power Yes Wildhorse River at Brownlee, ID 13289960 1978-2012 Idaho Power No Snake River at Oxbow Dam, OR 13290000 2002-2007 Idaho Power Yes 2009-2012 Pine Creek near Halfway, OR 1329-new 2010-2012 Idaho Power Yes Pine Creek near Oxbow, 13290190 1966-2012 Idaho Power Yes Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam, OR-ID 13290450 1965-2012 Idaho Power Yes

4-80

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Peak flows for a stream can be reported for different time intervals: largest instantaneous flow (of record, annual, for event, and multiple peak flows in a year); largest average flow for a period of time (15-minute, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, and annual). This means flood history can also be reported in different ways. Low flows for a stream also can be reported for different time intervals: lowest instantaneous flow (of record, annual, for event, and multiple low flows in a year), or low flow average for a period of time (15-minute, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, and annual).

Annual Peak Flows and Low Flows – Table 4-11 shows instantaneous (15-minute) annual peak and low flow data for seven gages within and adjacent to the assessment area currently managed by Idaho Power Company (IPC 2012a). Many conclusions can be made by comparing data among gages. Example 1: for water years 1997 and 2006, there were high peak flows for the Snake River and all other streams listed in the table. Example 2: for water year 2010, the second highest peak flows for the period of record occurred in Pine Creek, Powder River and Eagle Creek, but nowhere else. Example 3: for water year 1997, the highest peak flows of record occurred at Hells Canyon Dam and Pine Creek, but not for Eagle Creek and the Powder River. Example 4: for water year 2003, the lowest period-of-record flow in Pine Creek is not reflected in the Eagle Creek record because the Eagle Creek gage is above most diversions, whereas the Pine Creek gage is below most diversions.

Table 4A.3 (appendix 4.1) is a comparison of maximum annual instantaneous peak flow by date among the following five gages (USGS 2012d):  Snake River at Weiser – south end of assessment area at RM 351.3, 12 miles upstream from assessment area.  Snake River Hells Canyon Dam – north end of assessment area at RM 247, 0.6 mile downstream from assessment area.  Pine Creek near Oxbow – within assessment area, 1.9 miles upstream from the Snake River.  Powder River near Robinette – about two miles upstream of the Snake River and assessment area; inundated by Brownlee Pool.  Burnt River at Huntington – 2.9 miles upstream from Snake River and assessment area.

In table 4A.3 (appendix 4.1), the highest peak flows for each gage have been flagged in bold black print, for comparison among the gages and with data in table 4-11. For the Snake River, the highest peak flow ever measured was in 1910 and the second highest was in 1997. The 1894 flood was not measured but based on historical accounts it is believed to have been higher than the 1910 flood. Note that peak flow of the Snake River was usually higher at the downstream

4-81

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Hells Canyon Dam gage than at the Weiser gage, but sometimes was lower, due to water storage in the Idaho Power Company reservoirs. For Pine Creek, the highest peak flow of record was in 1997 and second highest was in 2010 (both on table 4-10), compared with 1968 on table 4A.3 (appendix 4.1) which was third highest. Note that on February 21, 1968, when instantaneous (mean 15-minute) peak flow was 7,110 cfs, mean daily (mean 24-hr) peak flow was 4,060 cfs; both of these were peak flows for the water year, just reported for different time intervals for the same day. The highest peak flow of record for the Powder River was 1952, and for the Burnt River was 1964.

4-82

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-11 Instantaneous Annual Peak Flow and Low Flow (1990-2011) at Seven Idaho Power Company Gages Within and Adjacent to Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Watershed Assessment Area.

Water Snake Snake Snake Snake Pine Pine Pine Pine Powder Powder Eagle Eagle Burnt Burnt Year River River River River Creek Creek Creek Creek River River Creek Creek River River Oxbow Oxbow Hells Hells near near at at near near above above Hunt- Hunt- Dam Dam Canyon Canyon Oxbow Oxbow Halfway Halfway Richland Richland Skull Skull ington ington Peak Low Dam Dam Peak Low Peak Low Peak Low Creek Creek Peak Low Flow Flow Peak Low Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Peak Low Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1990 29600 6320 1280 25 1991 29700 6290 1780 24 1992 22100 5120 1150 30 1993 55400 5360 4030 --- 1994 30900 5230 1130 17 1995 48800 6380 2380 25 873 5.0 2110 57 1996 73400 6380 3280 37 1490 14.0 2060 82 1997 101000 6430 11600 77 3640 49.0 2510 79 1998 94500 7010 3540 33 896 35.0 82.8 83 1999 67600 6860 4090 44 1810 19.0 5050 --- 2000 37500 5550 2970 24 1430 12.0 2160 76 413 73.0 2001 29400 5060 1560 16 495 5.0 1270 61 ------2002 31800 0 29200 5060 4470 22 1490 19.0 2430 56 989 19.6 2003 45500 0 45700 6500 3100 5 985 7.0 3990 57 280 20.0 2004 36700 0 30100 7450 1910 9 1180 9.0 1660 53 471 18.7 2005 39900 0 ------4150 8 1020 7.0 2710 58 156 22.9 2006 74500 0 82400 6480 4800 24 1520 12.0 3050 56 2080 27.2 2007 35300 0 27600 6420 1510 23 937 1.2 1630 60 212 9.4 2008 35700 0 31800 7900 4380 31 1390 0.2 2260 60 841 14.2 2009 47100 1190 45700 7060 2030 31 1720 13.0 1950 70 575 29.3 2010 69000 607 67700 6560 7180 26 3100 13.0 4290 62 1170 27.0 2011 84000 983 71600 8210 2560 27 890 1.1 2680 20.0 2660 71 2200 20.1

4-83

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4A.3 also shows that a high peak-flow event in Pine Creek, Powder River or Burnt River does not always mean there was a high peak-flow event in the Snake River; this demonstrates that peak flows of tributaries can be from regional storms. Regional events can also be seen on Table 4-11; for example, a comparison of Pine Creek and Eagle Creek flows in 1997 shows the storm that produced the highest peak flow of record in Pine Creek produced only a moderate peak flow event in Eagle Creek. The 1997 peak flow event most severely affected lower Pine Creek, lower North Pine Creek and tributaries of Hells Canyon Reservoir; the effects were much less severe to the south along Oxbow and Brownlee Reservoirs.

Multiple High-Flow and Low-Flow Events during a Single Year – Perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams in the assessment area experience many high-flow (or peak-flow) and low- flow events during a single year. Figure 4.1 of mean daily flow for the Snake River at Weiser gage for water year 2011 (USGS 2012e) shows multi-annual peak-flow and low-flow events. There were about 13 major high-flow and low-flow events during the water year.

Figure 4-1 Mean Daily Discharge Graph, Snake River at Weiser ID, Water Year 2011.

4-84

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

A graph of mean daily flow (Figure 4-2) for the Pine Creek near Oxbow gage for water year 1968 (USGS 2012f) demonstrates multi-annual peak-flow and low-flow events. This graph shows the third highest peak flow of record for Pine Creek, which was one of about 12 major peak flow events that water year. There are about 40 spikes (peak-flow events) and troughs (low-flow events) on the graph. The median daily statistic graph (tan line) shows that mean daily peak flow of 1000 cfs most often occurs in early June.

Figure 4-2 Mean Daily Discharge Graph, Pine Creek near Oxbow, OR, Water Year 1968.

Causes of the high-flow events at the Weiser and Pine Creek gages include fall and spring cold front rainfall, winter rain-on-snow, warm-cool weather snowmelt cycles, intense summer rainfall from thunderstorms, fall hard-frost-caused shutdown of evapotranspiration, and irrigation management. The Weiser graph is influenced by upstream flow management for irrigation, flood control and hydropower. The Pine Creek graph is influenced by upstream flow management (including storage and diversions) for irrigation.

4-85

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-12 Magnitude and Probability of Instantaneous Peak flow - for gages within and adjacent to the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Watershed Assessment Area (from USGS records) (Ref 1: Kjelstrom, Stone & Harenberg, 1995; Ref 2: Wellman, Gordon & Moffatt, 1993). Discharge, in cubic feet per second, for indicated recurrence interval, in Ratio of Pour Ref. # Gage (from upstream to downstream, Gage years, and exceedence probability, in percent 100-yr Point Weiser to Hells Canyon Dam) Number Period of event to 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr in this Record 2-yr event 50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% HUC7 1-411 Snake River at Weiser 13269000 1911-90 45,600 63,100 73,700 86,00 94,500 102,000 2.2 14F 1-415 Snake River at Oxbow Dam 13290000 1926-57 45,400 61,300 71,000 82,400 90,400 97,900 2.2 1968-71 17E 1-419 Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam 13290450 1966-90 48,800 66,100 77,200 90,000 101,000 111,000 2.3 2-49 Burnt River at Huntington 13275000 1928-32 ------1956-59 1962-80 2-53 Powder River nr Richland 13286700 1958-67 1,290 2,000 2,500 ------2-55 Eagle Creek abv Skull Creek 13288200 1957-87 2,120 2,800 3,270 3,880 4,350 4,830 2.3 2-56 Powder River nr Robinette 13289500 1929-57 2,630 3,960 4,800 5,810 6,520 7,200 2.7 1-413 Wildhorse River at Brownlee Dam 13289960 1978-90 1,100 1,860 2,440 3,270 3,950 4,680 4.3 27D 1-417 Pine Creek nr Oxbow 13290190 1968-90 2,810 4,510 5,780 7,530 8,930 10,400 3.7 27D 2-57 Pine Creek nr Oxbow 13290190 1967-87 3,020 4,590 5,750 7,330 8,590 -- FOOTNOTE -- Background material for right-hand column entitled “Ratio of 100-year event to 2-year event”: In Applied River Morphology (Rosgen & Silvey, 1996) bankfull flow is described as having a return interval of 1.8 to 2.2 years for most streams. Therefore, the 2-year events described in Table 4.19 are an approximation of bankfull flows. In Applied River Morphology we also learn that at stream cross-sections, the floodplain width at 2 times maximum depth at bankfull approximates the 50-year to 100-year floodplain width, which means the 50-year to 100-year events should be at least 2 times the bankfull (2- year) flow. This relationship is corroborated by data in Table 4-11 from which we learn by making the ratio of modeled 100-year flow to 2-year flow that the 100-year event for the Snake River is about 2.2 to 2.4 times the 2-year event, and for small Snake River tributaries the 100-year events are calculated to be 2.3 to 4.3 times the 2-year event.

Table 4-13 Percent of Bankfull Calculations for Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Natural Stream Flow for Pine Creek HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow (cfs) (OWRD 2011d) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Mean 27D Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth 156.0 273.0 484.0 677.0 914.0 812.0 146.0 71.0 67.6 78.6 102.0 142.0 326.9 % of Bankfull: (monthly cfs/2810 cfs x100) 5.6 9.7 17.2 24.1 32.5 28.9 5.6 2.5 2.4 2.8 3.6 5.1 11.6

4-86

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Magnitude and Frequency of Peak Flow Events – The magnitude and frequency for instantaneous peak flow events as calculated by USGS staff for the listed stream gages is shown in Table 4-12. Comparing peak flows in tables 4-10 and table 4A.3 with table 4-11 for Snake River at Weiser and at Hells Canyon Dam, and the Pine Creek near Oxbow gage shows that 100-year or more probability events have occurred at each gage only once during the periods of record.

Table 4-13 shows percent of bank full calculations for mean monthly and mean annual natural stream flow for Pine Creek, using the two-year peak flow event for Pine Creek (2,810 cfs). The bank full estimate is based on guidance in Rosgen and Silvey (1996) as explained in the footnote to the table. Results are: Mean Annual flow (326.9 cfs) is 12% of bank full; Mean May flow (914 cfs) is 33% of bank full, this is the peak-flow month; and Mean September flow (67.6 cfs) is 2.4% of bank full; this is the low-flow month.

Peak Flows and Low Flows from Modeled Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flows – Natural stream flows are the flows that are not affected by diversion of water for irrigation or other uses. Table 4A.4 (appendix 4.1) shows mean monthly natural stream flow calculations for 63 water availability basins in the assessment area (OWRD 2012d). These data are the only estimates of natural stream flow available for any streams in the assessment area, including gaged streams. The records for all gaged streams are affected by water withdrawals, so natural flow must be modeled.

The stream data show the month when peak and low flows typically occur. In the extreme south of the assessment area (Birch Creek and Road Gulch) peak flows occur in March and low flows occur in September. For Benson, Bay Horse and Morgan Creeks; peak flows occur in April and low flows occur in September. For Hibbard, Fox, Connor Creek, Soda and Canyon Creeks, which have higher-elevation, aspect or forest-protected snow packs, peak flows occur in May and low flows occur in September. From Quicksand Creek to McGraw Creek (except Nelson Creek), peak flows occur in April and low flows occur in September. From Spring Creek to Steamboat Creek, plus Nelson Creek, peak flows occur in May and low flows occur in September. For Pine Creek and tributaries, peak flows occur in May (with the exception of Upper Pine Creek which is June) and low flows occur in August or September.

Rain-on-Snow Event Model – The Manual contains no information for determining rain-on- snow event parameters. A preliminary Rain-on-Snow Event Model was developed for the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin based on information and analysis contained in the white paper entitled: Preliminary Rain-on-Snow Event Model for Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin (11 pages

4-87

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment available at the Powder Basin Watershed Council office in Baker City). The following conclusions were made from this study:

 Rain-on-snow events are more frequent in cooler, wetter years (La Niña years, such as 2010) than in warmer, dryer years (El Niño years, such as 1997).  Severe rain-on-snow events can occur in either El Niño years (such as 1997) or La Niña years (such as 2010).  Rain-on-snow events can occur in all subwatersheds of the assessment area, with low frequency (one to four events/year) in rangeland-dominated watersheds and high frequency (4-10 or more events/year) in forestland-dominated watersheds.  For Pine Creek water year 2010, from November 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, there were about 29 peak stream flow events; about 80% of them appear to have had a rain-on- snow component, at some elevation range in the watershed; elevation of the rain-on-snow component varied by storm.  Early rain-on-snow event research identified the main rain-on-snow zone as 3,900 to 6,000 feet (Cooley and Robertson 1983). A study at Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed (RCEW) in the Owyhee Mountains of southwest Idaho found the elevation range has risen about 1,000 feet over the 45-year period from1962 to 2006 (Nayak, Marks, Chandler and Seyfried 2010).  During the January 1, 1997 peak stream flow event, maximum snowmelt elevation in the Halfway area was between 8,500 and 9,000 feet, which is just below the highest peaks in Upper Pine Creek; in the Huntington area maximum snowmelt elevation was higher than 9,000 feet (Rain-on-Snow Event Model Appendix 4), which is higher than Morgan Mountain and Lookout Mountain.  Minimum elevation of rain-on-snow events can be as low as the shoreline of the Snake River reservoirs, but is more typically at least 500 feet higher; persistent winter snow cover in the Pine Creek watershed typically is above the confluence of North Pine Creek with Pine Creek (elevation 2,200 feet, 500 feet higher than Hells Canyon Reservoir). Elevation of persistent snow cover in the Huntington area is higher than in Pine Creek.

Flood History Timeline of Snake River – The following time line provides information for the Lake Bonneville Flood and for the larger events listed in table 4.18 (appendix 4.1). Peak flows for the 1982, 1984, 1997, 1998 and 2006 events are included for both the Weiser and Hells Canyon Dam gages, to show how flow processed through the assessment area.

4-88

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 14,300 years before present – Lake Bonneville Flood: The high terraces along the Snake River were created by the flood. Prior to completion of Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon Dams, flood deposits and scour marks were observed at the following sites and elevations along the Snake River… 290 feet above the Snake River at Brownlee Dam Site (River Mile (RM) 285), 195 feet above the Snake River at Oxbow Dam site (RM 273), 170 feet above the Snake River adjacent to Big Bar (RM 256), and 235 feet above the Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam site (RM 248); water depth was assumed to be deeper during the flood due to channel scour (Stearns 1962). In the Farewell Bend area (RM 334), floodwater was up to 300 feet deep, and suspended sediment was as large as 4 to 8 inches in diameter (O’Connor 1993). Peak flow estimates at Sinker Creek (RM 460)(120 miles upstream from Darrows Islands at RM 339 near Farewell Bend) for the flood are 28,000,830 to 36,016,200 cfs but most likely 33,000,000 cfs (Jarrett & Malde 1987) and 21,000,000 cfs at Lewiston (RM 139)(109 miles downstream from Hells Canyon Dam)(O’Connor 1993). Flood duration is estimated to have been a minimum of three months (O’Connor 1993) and a maximum of 12 months (Stearns 1962). Flood volume is estimated to have been 1,128 cubic miles (O’Connor 1993). Note: several pre-historic landslides visible along the Snake River between the Burnt River and Powder River in Oregon probably occurred during or shortly after this flood.  1894 (June) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at more than 120,000 cfs, the highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1910 (March3) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 120,000 cfs, stage of 17.1 feet, the second highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1921 (May 23) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 83,100 cfs, the fifth highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1952 (April 29) – Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 84,500 cfs, gage height 14.7 feet, the 3rd highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1964 (Dec 24) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 72,400 cfs, the eighth highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1982 (Feb 17) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 69,600 cfs, the ninth highest peak flow of record for this gage (USGS 2012a).  1982 (Feb 23) - Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam peaked at 87,800 cfs, the third highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012b).  1984 (Apr 20) - Snake River at Weiser Idaho peaked at 80,000 cfs, the fifth highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).

4-89

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 1984 (May 8) - Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam peaked at 78,400 cfs, the sixth highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012b).  1997 (Jan 2) - Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam peaked at 103,000 cfs, the highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012b).  1997 (Jan 3) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 84,100 cfs, the fourth highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1998 (May 28) - Snake River at Weiser, Idaho peaked at 78,700 cfs, the seventh highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012a).  1998 (May 29) - Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam peaked at 94,500 cfs, the second highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012b).  2006 (Apr 24) - Snake River at Weiser Idaho peaked at 67,600 cfs, the tenth highest peak flow of record (USGS 2012a).  2006 (Apr 18) - Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam peaked at 80,000 cfs, the fourth highest peak flow of record for the gage (USGS 2012b).

Peak Flow History Time line of Pine Creek and other Snake River Tributaries – Most information in this time line is for Pine Creek and its tributaries. Limited flood history information is available for other Snake River tributaries in the assessment area.  1870 to 1968 – Historical livestock grazing, primarily from Morgan Creek south to Birch Creek, and in subalpine rangelands in upper Boulder Creek, East Fork Pine Creek, Clear Creek, East Pine Creek and Lake Fork Creek, reduced ground cover low enough to allow intense summer rainfall to erode/entrench stream channels and disconnect them from their floodplains. Gullies extended into uplands from stream channels, which developed very efficient water transport networks. These networks advanced the timing, and increased the magnitude and volume of peak flows during intense rainfall events.  1968 (Feb 21) – Pine Creek peaks at 7,110 cfs, third highest flow of record  1970 (Jan 23) – Pine Creek peaks at 6,630 cfs, fifth highest flow of record  1974 (Jan 16) – Pine Creek peaks at 6,810 cfs, fourth highest flow of record  1977 (May 22) – Pine Creek peaks at 280 cfs ; this is the lowest peak flow of record.  1982 (Feb 22) – Pine Creek peaks at 5,240 cfs, seventh highest flow of record  1984 - 250% snowpack year - 11,000 cubic-foot landslide causes debris flow in lower two miles of Boulder Creek, which deposited sediment in and caused flooding along

4-90

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

lower Boulder Creek and Pine Creek below the Boulder Creek confluence. (post-event observation by Tim Bliss).  1986 (Feb 23) – Pine Creek peaks at 5,460 cfs, sixth highest flow of record  1988 (Jun 1) – Pine Creek peaks at 792 cfs; this is the second lowest peak flow of record.  1992 (Feb 21) – Pine Creek peaks at 1,150 cfs; this is the fourth lowest peak flow of record.  1994 (Mar 4) – Pine Creek peaks at 1,130 cfs; this is the third lowest peak flow of record.  1997 (Jan 1) – Pine Creek peaks at 11,600 cfs, highest flow of record  1997 (Jan 1) – High flows from the rain-on-snow event severely erode stream channels and stream banks of lower Pine Creek, lower North Pine Creek, Homestead Creek, Ballard Creek and other streams in that area. More than 100 debris flows originate in steep headlands of these drainages (4,000-5,000 foot elevation) along the ridgeline between North Pine Creek and Hells Canyon Reservoir.  2003 (no date) – Pine Creek peaks at 3,100 cfs, but has low flow of 5 cfs, lowest flow for 1990-2011  2004 (August) – Thunderstorm between Carson and Cornucopia causes localized flooding in Pine Creek, Boulder Creek, and other Pine Creek tributaries; floodwater and sediment from Boulder Creek damaged the Moore Ditch. (Post-event observation by Tim Bliss).  2006 (no date) – Pine Creek peaks at 4,470 cfs, ninth highest flow of record  2006 (no date) – Pine Creek peaks at 4,800 cfs, eighth highest flow of record  2008 (May) – Pine Creek peaks at 4,380 cfs, tenth highest flow of record and damages a City of Halfway sewage lagoon dike.  2010 (June 5) – Pine Creek peaks at 7,180 cfs, second highest flow of record and demolishes three bridges in Pine Valley.  2010 (summer) – Thunderstorm runoff plugged two culverts of intermittent streams along Oxbow Reservoir and a few culverts in lower Pine Creek, causing over-highway flooding and sediment deposition (post-event observation by Tim Bliss).  2011 (spring) – Annual flooding in Connor Creek is moving large amounts of sediment in mined lands along the stream where there is no riparian vegetation (post-event observation by Tim Bliss).

4-91

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Forest canopy reduction in rain-on-snow areas – This section calculates the forest management and forest wildfire related risk of peak flow enhancement. Changes in forest canopy have an effect on peak and low flows. Both timber harvest and forest fires have an effect on the forest canopy. The assumptions in the Manual for evaluating forestry impacts on stream flow are listed below.  Most rain-on-snow events are generated within and possibly above rain-on-snow zone forestlands; all other areas, including rangelands, are rated “low risk of peak flow enhancement.”  If more than 75% of any subwatershed is in the rain category it has low potential risk of peak-flow enhancement.  If more than 75% of any subwatershed is in the spring snowmelt category it has unknown potential risk of peak-flow enhancement.  The highest risk for peak flow enhancement is in rain-on-snow zone forestland that has crown closure reduced to below 30%; and that also has a high percent of managed forestland above the maximum rain-on-snow elevation.  There is a low risk of peak flow enhancement if less than 19% of the forestland is above the rain-on-snow zone, regardless of percent crown closure reduction.  There is a low risk of peak flow enhancement if less than 50% of the forestland is above the rain-on-snow zone, and there is less than 66% of rain-on-snow forestland where crown closure has been reduced to less than 30%.

There is no discussion in the Manual of percent crown closure reduction needed to create a risk of peak flow enhancement; nor is there a discussion of effects of forestland/rangeland mosaics, of aspect (south-facing versus north-facing slopes), or wildfire effects. The term “forestry land use area” is not defined in the Manual; it is assumed to mean the area of forest actively managed for forest products.

Forestland, as defined by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management must be at least 120 feet wide and 1 acre in size with at least 10% current or potential tree canopy cover; commercial forestland, also referred to as timberland, must produce at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year (BLM 2006). Percent forest cover discussed in this section is based on the above forestland definition.

The drier forested areas of the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin assessment area, which occur in the mountains along the Snake River and lower elevations of Pine Creek, are a mosaic of forestland and rangeland. Figure 4.3, below, is a Google Earth image showing the mosaic of forest, tall shrub, short shrub-grass and grass-forb communities in upper Dry Fork of Connor Creek (and in

4-92

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment upper Soda Creek in upper right) on Lookout Mountain. Elevation is 4,700-5,300 feet, in the rain-on-snow zone discussed below.

Figure 4-3 Photo of Forest Cover Mosaic in Dry Fork of Connor Creek (map from Google Earth).

A summary of percent forest cover by subwatershed is presented in Table 4-14. Note that fifteen of twenty seven subwatersheds have more than 10% forest cover, and six of those fifteen subwatersheds have more than 50% forest cover. The other subwatersheds have less than 2% forest cover.

Table 4-14 Percent forest cover by subwatershed. HUC 6 HUC 6 Acres Acres of Percent (%) HUC 6 Name Short in Assessment Historic Historic

Code Area Forest Cover Forest Cover 01 Road Gulch – Snake River 5,440 35 0.7 02 Upper Birch Creek 17,698 7 < 0.1 03 Love Reservoir Creek 14,053 0 0.0 04 Lower Birch Creek 13,460 0 0.0 05 Benson Creek 10,897 0 0.0 06 Grouse Creek – Snake River 5,305 2 < 0.1 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 5,780 4 < 0.1 08 Morgan Creek – Snake River 26,673 5315 19.9 09 Dennett Creek – Snake River 2,980 21 0.7 10 Raft Creek – Snake River 13,549 1705 12.6 11 Jackson Gulch – Snake River 3,262 23 0.7 12 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 5,624 11 0.2 13 Dukes Creek – Snake River 3,332 38 1.1 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 8,740 968 11.1 15 Herman Creek – Snake River 15,680 4075 26.0 16 McGraw Creek – Snake River 12,713 4875 38.3 17 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 11,261 5587 49.6 18 Upper Pine Creek 21,875 13998 64.0 19 McMullen Slough 19,246 5965 31.0 20 Clear Creek 19,631 13996 71.3 21 East Pine Creek 25,701 16236 63.2 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 16,649 228 1.4

4-93

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-14 Percent forest cover by subwatershed. HUC 6 HUC 6 Acres Acres of Percent (%) HUC 6 Name Short in Assessment Historic Historic

Code Area Forest Cover Forest Cover 23 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23,836 5425 22.8 24 Upper North Pine Creek 19,007 15867 83.5 25 Lake Fork Creek 19,963 17274 86.5 26 Lower North Pine Creek 16,104 9029 56.1 27 Lower Pine Creek 11,524 3360 29.2 Total 369,983

To determine historic crown closure the Manual refers one to “Appendix A - Ecoregion Descriptions,” which is a separate document on the OWEB website. Ecoregions are shown on map 5.1; please note that the melange ecoregion shown in the Dukes Creek-Snake River HUC6 is wrong because there is no forest in that area and should be Continental Zone Foothills. Table 4-14 shows crown closure for the eight ecoregions in the assessment area. Note that the six ecoregions with forest cover (11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, 11l, 11m) all have historic crown closure greater than 30 percent, and ecoregions with little forest cover (11i, 12j) have historic crown closure less than 30 percent. Dominant hydrologic processes are also listed by ecoregion. Note that winter or spring rain-on-snow events are dominant hydrologic process in all ecoregions. Table 4-15 Historic crown closure and dominant hydrologic processes by Ecoregion IV. Ecoregion Ecoregion IV Name Historic Dominant Hydrologic Processes IV Code Crown Closure 11d Melange >30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt 11e Wallowas Seven Devils Mountains >30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt 11f Canyons and Dissected Highlands >30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt 11g Canyons and Dissected Uplands >30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt 11i Continental Zone Foothills <30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt 11l Mesic Forest Zone >30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt 11m Subalpine Zone >30% spring rain, spring rain-on-snow, spring snowmelt “Peak flows can occur in any season… fairly evenly split between seasons as reported at many stream gages. Winter rainstorms and winter rain-on-snow processes actively generate many of the winter peak flows…. 12j Unwooded Alkaline Foothills <30% Spring peak flows are commonly generated by both rainfall and snowmelt…. Summer thunderstorms produce a substantially higher percentage of annual peak flows.” (WPN 1999, p. 197)

The areas with these dominant rain/snow hydrologic processes (table 4-15) are shown on map A4.11 (appendix 4.2). The analyst mapped the areas as rain, rain on snow, and snow melt based on elevation, aspect, and personal observation. On the south end of the map, the 3,920-foot elevation line was used to map the rain /rain-on-snow boundary. On the north end of the study the 2,480-foot elevation line was used to map the rain/ rain on snow boundaries along the Snake River and along the Lower Pine Creek canyons. In the Upper Pine Creek drainage areas above

4-94

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment an elevation of 5,760 feet were mapped as the snow melt zone. The rest of the Pine Creek drainage was mapped as rain-on-snow. This map was used to complete Table 4-16. This table shows the risk of peak flow enhancement from forest management and wildfire for all of the subwatersheds in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin.

4-95

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-16 Risk of peak flow enhancement from forest management and wildfire by subwatershed. HUC6 Rain ROS Snow Historic ROS Zone: ROS Zone: ROS Zone: Risk of Peak Flow Reason for Short HUC 6 Name Zone Zone Melt Forest Percent Percent Forest Percent Enhancement from Rating Code (%) (%) Zone Cover Historic w/ < 30% Crown Forestry Land Forest Management (See (%) (%) Crown Closure from Use Area in and Wildfire Footnote 1) Closure Mgmt or Fire the Zone 01 Road Gulch – Snake River 100 0 0 0.7 Low (1) 02 Upper Birch Creek 60 40 0 < 0.1 Low (2) 03 Love Reservoir Creek 100 0 0 0.0 Low (1) 04 Lower Birch Creek > 95 < 5 0 0.0 Low (1) 05 Benson Creek > 95 < 5 0 0.0 Low (1) 06 Grouse Creek – Snake River 100 0 0 < 0.1 Low (1) 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 80 20 0 < 0.1 Low (1) 08 Morgan Creek – Snake River 50 50 0 19.9 > 30 30 90-100 Low-Mod (2)(3) 09 Dennett Creek – Snake River 90 10 0 0.7 Low (1) 10 Raft Creek – Snake River 50 50 0 12.6 > 30 10 90-100 Low (2)(3) 11 Jackson Gulch – Snake River > 95 < 5 0 0.7 Low (1) 12 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River > 70 < 30 0 0.2 Low (2) 13 Dukes Creek – Snake River > 70 < 30 0 1.1 Low (2) 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake River > 70 < 30 0 11.1 > 30 0 80 Low (2)(3) 15 Herman Creek – Snake River 50 50 0 26.0 > 30 10 90 Low (2)(3) 16 McGraw Creek – Snake River 40 60 0 38.3 > 30 5 80 Low (3) 17 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 50 50 0 49.6 > 30 0 80 Low (3) 18 Upper Pine Creek 0 50 50 64.0 > 30 20 (fire) 100 Low-Mod (3) 19 McMullen Slough 0 100 0 31.0 > 30 20-25 100 Low-Mod (3) 20 Clear Creek 0 65 35 71.3 > 30 15-20 100 Low-Mod (3) 21 East Pine Creek 0 85 15 63.2 > 30 10-15 100 Low (3) 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 0 100 0 1.4 Low (1)(2) 23 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 0 95 5 22.8 > 30 10 95 Low (2)(3) 24 Upper North Pine Creek 0 95 5 83.5 > 30 5-10 100 (3) 25 Lake Fork Creek 0 55 45 86.5 > 30 10 (fire) 100 Low (3) 26 Lower North Pine Creek < 5 > 95 0 56.1 > 30 5-10 >95 (3) 27 Lower Pine Creek 50 50 0 29.2 > 30 Low (2) FOOTNOTE 1 (Reasons for Low Ratings): (1) more than 75% of subwatershed is in rain category; (2) watershed has less than 30% crown closure, which is also interpreted as less than 30% forest cover; (3) Figure 3 analysis (WPN 1999).

4-96

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

An example of timber harvest with final crown cover less than 30 percent is shown in figure 4-4. The area in figure 4-3 is at the far right. The south-facing harvest area (elevation 4,900-6,000 feet) is in the upper rain-on-snow zone of Lookout Mountain. There are timber harvest areas on Lookout Mountain that have reduced canopy closure. Most clear cuts in Pine Creek are located in Upper Pine Creek, Clear Creek and East Pine Creek. Low elevation ponderosa pine cover has been removed from all subwatersheds around the perimeter of Pine Valley to accommodate agricultural activities.

Figure 4-4 Photo of harvested area in upper Connor Creek with final crown cover less than 30 percent (map from Google Earth).

Map 6.5 shows the numerous wildfires that have reduced forest and rangeland shrub canopy cover of the study area. The three largest fires (Foster Gulch 2006, Twin Lakes 2006, Twin Lakes 1994) burned 89,500 acres in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin. There is substantial crown cover reduction from recent (and old wildfires not shown on the map) in Upper Pine Creek above Cornucopia, in upper Lake Fork Creek (2001 fire), with smaller areas in upper Clear Creek, East Pine Creek (2001 fire) and Fish Creek (2001 fire).

The effects of the 2001 wildfire on forestland east of Fish Lake in upper Lake Fork Creek (HUC6 number 25) can be seen in figure 4-5. Tree crown cover is less than 10 percent in more severely burned areas. Elevation range in the burned area is 6,200-7,200 feet, with 6,200 feet at far right. Even though this area is mapped in the snow-melt zone, warm rain-on-snow events like 1997 would add this area to the rain-on-snow zone.

4-97

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 4-5 Photo of 2001 wildfire area around Fish Lake in Upper Lake Fork Creek with final crown cover less than 10 percent in most areas (map from Google Earth).

Forest Management and Wildfire – Peak flow enhancement risk in all but four subwatersheds have Low Risk. Subwatersheds 08 (Morgan Creek-Snake River), and 18, 19 and 20 (Upper Pine Creek, McMullen Slough and Clear Creek) have Low-to-Moderate Risk. If the upper rain-on- snow (ROS) elevation is determined to be 6,500 feet subwatershed 25 (Lake Fork Creek) would be added to the list. Probable ROS zones are described below for the Southern Foothills, the Snake River Canyon, and Pine Creek.

Southern Foothills ROS Zone – The area above 3,900 feet was classified as winter rain-on-snow because there is no forestland; aspect is northeast- and southeast-facing. The hydrologic regime below 3,900 feet is dominated by rain.

Snake River Canyon ROS Zone – The area above 3,000 to 3,900 feet in the Morgan Mountain- Lookout Mountain area along Brownlee Reservoir, in the Sheep Mountain area above Brownlee and Oxbow Reservoirs, and from Hunsaker Creek to Steamboat Creek along Hells Canyon Reservoir was identified as winter and spring rain-on-snow dominated. This elevation was used because there is higher probability of transient snow at lower elevations along the Snake River than in upper Birch Creek.

Pine Creek ROS Zone – The lowest extent of the rain-on-snow zone was delineated at 2,500 feet because much more snow accumulates and remains at lower elevations in Pine Valley than in any other part of the assessment area. The upper elevation of the dominant rain-on-snow zone was delineated at 5,700 feet even though the Reynolds Creek study suggests it should be closer

4-98

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment to 7,000 feet. The landform aspect of the high-snow-pack forested uplands north of Pine Valley is dominantly south to southeast-facing.

Agricultural Land and Rangeland – The Manual describes a 15-step process for assessing effects of agricultural activities and livestock grazing activities on hydrology of subwatersheds. The methodology suggests focusing on either agricultural use or rangeland use, whichever is dominant. This assessment focuses on rangelands because rangeland use comprises about 75% of the assessment area, including shrub and herbaceous rangelands, forested rangelands, and agricultural lands used for pasture and hay production.

The OWEB methodology requires identification of major hydrologic soil groups by subwatershed. A review of hydrologic soil groups (defined in Halley, White and Watkins, 2012) listed in the Baker County Area Soil Survey (Laird 1997) by soil map unit and soil series found all four hydrologic soil groups present in the assessment area, with alluvial valley bottom soils being primarily Group B with areas of A and C, and uplands being primarily Group C with areas of B and D. The conclusion of this simple analysis of hydrologic soil groups is upland soils have higher risk of peak flow enhancement than bottomland soils because infiltration rate is slower, but also because slopes are steeper and longer.

The model inputs and outputs for the Agricultural Lands and Rangelands analysis are shown in table 4-17. The analysis indicates that rangelands of the assessment area have a LOW RISK of peak flow enhancement based on current conditions when analyzed broadly by HUC6. However, when known problem areas are analyzed, such as upper Boulder Creek in the Upper Pine Creek HUC6, the result is a MODERATE RISK of peak flow enhancement. This rating is believed to be too low, and should be HIGH RISK because upper Boulder Creek also has several miles of gullies that accelerate runoff, which the OWEB methodology does not consider.

Moderate to High risk of peak-flow enhancement can also occur in low elevation rangelands following wildfire, such as the Foster Gulch Fire in 2006 (map 6.5); the low ground cover condition in burned rangelands can persist for a few years, until plant crown cover and ground cover approach pre-fire levels.

4-99

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-17 Summary of agricultural land and rangeland runoff analysis. HUC6 Cover Types % Hydro- Curve Back- Rainfall Current Back- Change Weighted Relative Watershed (CT) CT logic Number for ground Depth Runoff ground From Average Potential for (code/name) Con- Hydrologic Curve (2yr-1day Depth Runoff Back- Peak Flow dition Soil Group Number storm) (in.) Depth (in.) ground Enhance-ment (note1) C (note3) (in.) (note 4) (note2) 05 Benson Sagebrush- 87 Fair 63 47 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Creek grass Good 47 47 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 05 Benson Herbaceous 10 Fair 81 47 0.65 0.03 0.00 0.03 <0.01 Low Creek Good 74 47 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 05 Benson Agricultural 3 Fair 79 47 0.65 0.02 0.00 0.02 <0.01 Creek Good 74 47 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 Deer Creek- Sagebrush- 87 Fair 63 47 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pine Creek grass Good 47 47 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 Deer Creek- Herbaceous 3 Fair 81 47 1.12 0.14 0.00 0.14 < 0.01 Low Pine Creek Good 74 47 1.12 0.05 0.00 0.05 22 Deer Creek- Agricultural 10 Fair 79 47 1.12 0.11 0.00 0.11 <0.01 Pine Creek Good 74 47 1.12 0.05 0.00 0.05

18 Upper Pine Herbaceous 10 Poor 80 62 2.4 0.82 0.15 0.67 0.07 Creek – 90 Fair 71 62 2.4 0.43 0.15 0.28 0.22 Subalpine 10 Good 62 62 2.4 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 Rangelands in Moderate Upper Boulder Hydrologic Creek Soil Group B

Note 1: Boundary between Fair/Good rating is 70% ground cover for sagebrush-grass and herbaceous and 75% ground cover for agricultural lands based on Tables B-2 and B-3 in the OWEB Manual. Ground cover in most low-elevation rangelands is in the 50-80% range. Note 2: Hydrologic soil group C was chosen as an average condition for low elevation rangelands. Note 3: Rainfall depth for the 2-year 1-day storm for Benson Creek and Deer Creek-Pine Creek HUC6s was obtained from OWEB data. For the Boulder Creek area the data was obtained from the Oregon precipitation-frequency atlas (Miller, J.F, R. H. Frederick and R. J. Tracey. 1973). Note 4: Low Rating (0.00-0.25 inches); Moderate Rating (0.25-0.75 inches)

4-100

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Another Model for Evaluating Risk of Peak Flow Enhancement Risk from Rangelands – The following methodology (Bliss 2009) is a simpler method than the OWEB fifteen step process. It can be used by landowners to evaluate the hydrology of their rangelands.

Step 1 – Determine Percent Ground Cover and Canopy Cover along 100-point transects in representative sites. Describe ground cover in a ¾-inch diameter area at the toe of the shoe in one of seven categories: (1) bare, (2) continuous gravel pavement where particles are less than ¾-inch diameter, (3) rock at least ¾-inch diameter, (4) woody debris at least ¾-inch diameter in contact with the ground, (5) continuous herbaceous litter in contact with the ground, (6) organic crust including thin moss cover at least ¾-inch diameter, or (7), basal area of plant at least ¾- inch diameter. Note if shrub canopy cover exists at each ground cover data point.

Step 2 – Total up percent bare ground and gravel pavement as Total Bare Ground. Total up percent rock, organic litter, woody debris, organic crust, and basal area of plants as Total Ground Cover. Also total up percent canopy cover observations.

Step 3 – Compare percent ground cover and percent canopy cover observations with tables 4-18 and 4-19 to determine potential risk for peak flow enhancement. These tables are based on studies in northeast Oregon by Tim Bliss.

Step 4 – Adjust the risk rating down ½ class for each of the following site conditions that may be present:  A rill or gully network exists at or upslope from the site.  The receiving stream channel is a gully, disconnected from its historic floodplain. Table 4-18 Range of natural ground cover and canopy cover for rangelands. Major Plant Community or Site Condition Percent Natural Percent Natural Ground Cover Shrub Canopy Cover Wetlands 90-100% Riparian Areas (not including Wetlands) 80-90% Tall Shrub sites (e.g. chokecherry, mountain maple) 70-90% Big Sagebrush-Grass-Forb 60-80% 0-40% Grass-Forb 60-80% Areas of high burrowing-rodent activity 10-50% Aggressive noxious and invasive weed sites (whitetop, 60-90% medusahead, tumble mustard, etc.) Shallow soils – stable sites (usually very rocky, ridge tops) 60-90% Shallow soils – naturally erosive sites (usually steep, 30-60% south-facing, sandier soils)

4-101

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-19 Relative potential risk for peak flow enhancement from rangelands. Percent Percent Shrub Crown Cover Ground (when leaves are present) Cover 0-10 11-30 31-50 51-70 71-90 10-30 Very High Very High na na na 31-50 High High Mod. High na na 51-70 Moderate Moderate Mod. Low Mod. Low na 71-90 Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

This methodology would produce a more robust rating than the Manual method in table 4-17. Benson Creek and Deer Creek-Pine Creek would be rated moderate due to average ground cover below 70% and because of more than 10 miles of deeply entrenched/gullied stream channels. Upper Boulder Creek would be rated High, because average ground cover is below 70% and because of a dense network of upland gullies and gullied stream channels.

The above methodology considers ground cover studies and literature cited in Bliss 2009. For about 40 years rangeland and watershed scientists have recommended a minimum of 60-70% ground cover in sagebrush steppe and moister rangelands to maintain soil productivity. Rangelands show evidence of accelerated sheet erosion and plant pedestaling and begin developing rills and gullies as ground cover drops from about 65% to 55%; hence, the ground cover class shown as 51-70% is given a moderate rating because it is the transition class between stable rangeland and unstable rangeland.

Roadways – The influence of roads on watersheds was evaluated two ways: percent roaded area and road density. Percent roaded area for watersheds was determined by multiplying road miles of each road type by average roadway width for each road type minus the fill slope width if it was well vegetated. The roadway width is defined as top-of-cut to bottom-of-fill as shown in figure 4.6. Roadway width is used because it can influence rainfall and snowmelt runoff. Clearing of vegetation reduces plant canopy cover and ground cover; cut and fill slopes are steeper than natural slope gradient; cut slopes often intercept groundwater; ditches and rutted travel ways extend the ephemeral stream network; roadbeds, ditches and cut slopes maintain ground cover below natural levels; and hydraulic conductivity of roadbeds and cut slopes remains low compared to pre-road conditions. Fill slope width was not included because it has been decades since construction of 99% of roads and most fill slopes are well vegetated with shrub-grass-forb or grass-forb cover. Road density was determined from map 6.2, which shows a dense network of roads on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

4-102

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 4-6 Typical Roadway Cross-section Diagram (USDOT 2012).

Table 4-20, below, is a summary of percent roads and road density by HUC6 watershed. HUC6 watersheds with the highest percent roaded area and road density are in the Pine Creek watershed, and include McMullen Slough, Clear Creek, East Pine Creek, Fish Creek-Pine Creek, Upper North Pine Creek and Lower North Pine Creek.

According to the OWEB Manual watersheds with less than 4% roaded area or less than 4.2% road density have Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. Table 4-19 shows that all subwatersheds have Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential due to roads.

Table 4-20 Percent of subwatershed in roads. HUC6 HUC6 Acreage Percent Road Short in Assessment Roads Density HUC6 Name Code Area by from BLM

(acres) HUC6 by HUC6 (%) (mi/sq mi) 01 Road Gulch – Snake River 5,440 0.9 0.8 02 Upper Birch Creek 17,698 0.4 1.2 03 Love Reservoir Creek 14,053 0.5 1.7 04 Lower Birch Creek 13,460 0.5 1.4 05 Benson Creek 10,897 0.9 0.9 06 Grouse Creek – Snake River 5,305 0.4 0.5 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 5,780 0.5 0.6 08 Morgan Creek – Snake River 26,673 0.6 1.2 09 Dennett Creek – Snake River 2,980 0.8 0.1 10 Raft Creek – Snake River 13,549 0.3 0.7 11 Jackson Gulch – Snake River 3,262 <0.1 <0.1 12 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 5,624 <0.1 <0.1 13 Dukes Creek – Snake River 3,332 <0.1 0.1 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 8,740 0.3 0.4

4-103

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-20 Percent of subwatershed in roads. HUC6 HUC6 Acreage Percent Road Short in Assessment Roads Density HUC6 Name Code Area by from BLM

(acres) HUC6 by HUC6 (%) (mi/sq mi) 15 Herman Creek – Snake River 15,680 0.4 1.0 16 McGraw Creek – Snake River 12,713 0.1 0.3 17 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 11,261 <0.1 0.1 18 Upper Pine Creek 21,875 0.6 1.4 19 McMullen Slough 19,246 1.3 3.2 20 Clear Creek 19,631 1.0 2.8 21 East Pine Creek 25,701 1.4 3.9 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 16,649 0.5 1.5 23 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23,836 0.9 2.2 24 Upper North Pine Creek 19,007 1.0 3.1 25 Lake Fork Creek 19,963 0.3 0.9 26 Lower North Pine Creek 16,104 1.1 2.3 27 Lower Pine Creek 11,524 0.4 <0.1 Total

369,983

Table 4-21, below, lists the twenty-three HUC7 watersheds in the assessment area that have road density of at least three miles per square mile. According to the Manual, watersheds with urban road density of 4.2 to 5.5 miles per square mile have a Moderate Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. If this also applies to rural gravel or native surface roads, the twelve HUC7s highlighted in the table would have Moderate Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. All other HUC7 watersheds have Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential due to roads.

Aerial photographs show that many roads are not yet included on the road data supplied by BLM. Road mileage was determined from Google Earth images for three HUC7s for comparison with the road mileage data derived from the BLM data set. Results show underestimate of road density of 26% for HUC7-01C, 21% for HUC7-01D, and 191% for HUC7-10C. Table 4-21 Higher road density HUC7s. HUC7 HUC7 Name HUC7 Road HUC7 Road Density Road Code Mileage Area by HUC7 Density by (miles) (sq mi) BLM data HUC7 Bliss (mi/sq mi) validation (mi/sq mi) 01C SR - Darrows Islands 10.5 3.8 2.7 3.4 01D SR - Road Gulch 13.2 4.7 2.8 3.4 10C Soda Creek 4.2 3.7 1.1 3.2 15A SR – Oxbow 3.7 0.7 5.1 18E PineCr - Tunnel Creek 20.6 5.2 4.0 19A Carson Creek 19.5 3.6 5.4 19B Upper Lee Creek 16.8 3.6 4.6

4-104

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-21 Higher road density HUC7s. HUC7 HUC7 Name HUC7 Road HUC7 Road Density Road Code Mileage Area by HUC7 Density by (miles) (sq mi) BLM data HUC7 Bliss (mi/sq mi) validation (mi/sq mi) 19C Lower Lee Creek 31.7 8.9 3.6 19F McMullen Slough 4.8 1.2 4.2 20B Trail Creek 10.6 3.4 3.1 20C Meadow Creek 10.9 2.6 4.2 20D Middle Clear Creek 35.6 6.1 5.8 20E Holbrook Creek 21.8 4.9 4.5 21A Upper East Pine Creek 28.1 6.0 4.7 21B Trinity Creek 15.3 3.2 4.8 21D EastPineCr - Beecher Creek 39.9 6.1 6.5 21E Upper Dry Creek 20.8 5.6 3.7 21F West Fork Dry Creek 19.2 4.5 4.3 23D Upper Fish Creek 35.2 6.3 5.6 24A Upper North Pine Creek 25.1 7.3 3.4 24B Upper Duck Creek 29.0 7.1 4.1 24C Lower Duck Creek 20.3 5.7 3.6 26D Little Elk Creek 22.7 6.9 3.3

Impervious Surfaces – Impervious surfaces attributable to urban-rural development are shown in table 4-22. The highest percentages of impervious surfaces are in subwatershed 01 (2.1% - due mostly to highways I-84 and OR 201, and the ODOT weigh station), subwatershed 20 (1.7% - due mostly to forest roads, other roads, and homes in lower Clear Creek drainage), subwatershed 06 (1.1% - due mostly to Farewell Bend community and state park, and highways I-84 and US 30), and subwatershed 19 (0.9% - due mostly to City of Halfway and state and county roads).

According to the Manual, HUC6 watersheds with less than 5% impervious surface have Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. Data in Table 4-22 show all HUC6 watersheds in the assessment area to be well below this threshold. Table 4-22 Percent impervious surface by subwatershed. HUC 6 HUC 6 Acreage Percent (%) HUC 6 Name Short in Assessment Impervious Surface

Code Area 01 Road Gulch – Snake River 5,440 2.1 02 Upper Birch Creek 17,698 0.3 03 Love Reservoir Creek 14,053 0.3 04 Lower Birch Creek 13,460 0.2 05 Benson Creek 10,897 0.7 06 Grouse Creek – Snake River 5,305 1.1 07 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 5,780 0.2 08 Morgan Creek – Snake River 26,673 0.2 09 Dennett Creek – Snake River 2,980 0.2

4-105

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-22 Percent impervious surface by subwatershed. HUC 6 HUC 6 Acreage Percent (%) HUC 6 Name Short in Assessment Impervious Surface

Code Area 10 Raft Creek – Snake River 13,549 0.2 11 Jackson Gulch – Snake River 3,262 <0.1 12 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 5,624 <0.1 13 Dukes Creek – Snake River 3,332 <0.1 14 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 8,740 0.6 15 Herman Creek – Snake River 15,680 0.2 16 McGraw Creek – Snake River 12,713 0.1 17 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 11,261 <0.1 18 Upper Pine Creek 21,875 0.4 19 McMullen Slough 19,246 0.9 20 Clear Creek 19,631 1.7 21 East Pine Creek 25,701 0.9 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 16,649 0.3 23 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23,836 0.3 24 Upper North Pine Creek 19,007 0.8 25 Lake Fork Creek 19,963 0.2 26 Lower North Pine Creek 16,104 0.6 27 Lower Pine Creek 11,524 0.2 Total 369,983

Twelve HUC7 watersheds in the assessment area have impervious surface greater than one percent (table 4-23). Note that one of these watersheds (19F McMullen Slough, which includes most of the City of Halfway) has 5.9% impervious surface. According to the Manual, McMullen Slough HUC7 has Moderate Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. All other HUC7s have Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential.

Table 4-23 Percent impervious surface by drainage. HUC 7 HUC 7 Name HUC7 Acres Percent (%) Code in Assessment Impervious Area Surface 01C SR - Darrows Islands 2460 3.1 01D SR - Road Gulch 2980 1.3 05C Lower Benson Creek 3348 1.9 06A SR – Oregon Trail 1147 3.8 14F SR - Cottonwood Creek 1365 1.1 15A SR – Oxbow 470 2.4 19F McMullen Slough 741 5.9 20A Upper Clear Creek 5762 3.7 20C Meadow Creek 1650 1.6 20F Lower Clear Creek 3012 1.1 21B Trinity Creek 2025 1.8 21D East Pine Creek- Beecher Creek 3928 2.2

4-106

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Summary of Hydrologic Issues

Climate Change: Research at Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed found the transient snow zone has risen about 1,000 feet over the 45-year period from 1962 to 2006 with minimum temperatures increasing from 2.9◦F to 4.6◦F, and maximum temperatures increasing from 1.6◦F to 2.8◦F. The authors wrote: “…water year (annual) stream flow and precipitation have not changed over the period of record. However, as other studies have shown… there has been a seasonal shift in stream flow, with increases in winter and early spring and decreases in late spring and summer. This shift which is stronger at high elevations is delayed at mid and low elevations” (Nayak, Marks, Chandler and Seyfried 2010). The onset of snowmelt peak flow and summer low flow occur about one month earlier.

Multi-Annual Peak Flows and Low Flows: Stream gage records for the Snake River, Pine Creek and other streams near the assessment area show that streams typically experience more than 10 major peak and low flow events each year. Peak flows are rainfall, rain-on-snow and/or snowmelt-generated.

Frequent Rain-on-Snow Events: Preliminary research by Bliss (2012) suggests there are many more rain-on-snow events in Pine Creek watershed than predicted by the scientific literature. Rain-generated and rain-on-snow-generated peak flows often occur at different times during the same storm, or at the same time at different elevations. Contributing factors include interactions of northeast-trending storms with the unique geography of a 193,500-acre watershed. Pine Creek watershed is 52% forestland, has an 8,000-foot elevation range, a 25-30◦F temperature range. It includes a 10-mile-long by 5-mile-wide valley located between a 2,000-foot-high plateau forested to the southwest and a 3,000 foot high forested plateau to the northeast. Pine Valley is only 2,000 feet higher than the Snake River with a 15-mile-long outflow channel from the valley that follows the storm track and collects water from six high-elevation subwatersheds and four low-elevation subwatersheds.

Forestry and Forest Fires: Subwatersheds 08 (Morgan Creek-Snake River), and 18, 19 and 20 (Upper Pine Creek, McMullen Slough and Clear Creek) were found to have Low-to-Moderate Peak Flow Enhancement Potential from forest management activities; all other watersheds have low risk. Most of the 2001 forest fire in upper Lake Fork Creek was in the snow zone. If the upper rain-on-snow elevation is determined, after further analysis, to be 1,000 feet higher in elevation, subwatershed 25 (Lake Fork Creek) would be added to the list of Low-to-Moderate Risk watersheds.

Agricultural Lands and Rangelands: At the subwatershed level of analysis, rangelands are rated at Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential; agricultural lands are too small in acreage to influence the rating. Accuracy of the OWEB methodology is questionable because (1) it does

4-107

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment not factor in the change in hydrology caused by gullied stream networks and upland gully systems caused by historic grazing of uplands, and (2) it does not consider the ground cover threshold near 60% below which rangeland watersheds develop gully networks. An alternative methodology is presented for rating rangelands that places Benson Creek and similar gullied watersheds in the Moderate Risk category.

Roaded Area/Road Density: At the subwatershed level of analysis, roads are rated at a Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. At the HUC7 level of analysis, twelve HUC7s have a Moderate rating due to road density greater than 4.2 miles per square mile.

Impervious Surfaces: At the subwatershed level of analysis, impervious surfaces are rated at Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. At the HUC7 level of analysis, McMullen Slough (City of Halfway) has a Moderate rating due to impervious surface area greater than 5%.

Water Use

The Manual methodology recommends three analyses of water use in the assessment area: (1) summarize surface and groundwater rights; (2) summarize consumptive water uses; and (3) summarize water availability. The purpose of these analyses is to describe the effect of water use on stream flow, which may lower or enhance flows at different times of the year. A fourth task is also recommended: (4) identify any ODFW stream flow restoration priorities for the assessment area. The Manual also includes Critical Questions and Assumptions, quoted below for reference.

Critical Questions

1. What are the primary beneficial uses of water in the watershed? 2. Is water use mostly from ground water or surface water? 3. What type of storage has been constructed in the watershed? 4. Are there any transfers of water into or out of the watershed? 5. Are any unauthorized uses of water occurring in the watershed? 6. Do water uses in the watershed have an effect on peak flows or low flows?

Assumptions

 Water use most significantly affects low flows, with the exception of storage, which can reduce peak flows downstream of the structure.

4-108

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Materials and Methods

Surface and ground-water rights, consumptive water uses, and water availability were summarized from OWRD databases. Evaporation was calculated from evaporation research detailed in the section on climate.

Results

Water Rights – There are several types of water rights. The Oregon Water Resources Department water-rights database identifies and/or sorts water-right applications, permits and certificates. The OWRD uses of the following codes for the assessment area: G (ground water), IS (in stream), MF (minimum flow), R (storage), RN (reservation for future water right applications), S (surface water registration), SI (special code for municipal uses), SW (pre-1909 registrations for non-adjudicated area along the Snake River).

Some water rights information for the Pine Creek watershed may be reviewed in the Pine Creek Watershed Assessment (PBWC 2000). This document contains a list of major stream diversions (Appendix E), a list of water rights for Pine Creek, Clear Creek and East Pine Creek (Appendix F), and a list of in-stream water rights (Appendix G).

In-stream Flow Rights - The only in-stream water rights in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin are in the Pine Creek Watershed (PBWC 2000 Appendix G). Table 4-24 describes the minimum flow requirements by half-month of in-stream (IS) and minimum flow (MF) water rights, plus partial information for in-stream (IS) applications that have been on administrative hold since 1996.

4-109

Table 4-24 In stream and minimum flow water rights Pour OWRD Water Minimum Monthly or Half-Month Stream flows (cfs) Listed in In-stream Water Rights and Pending Applications Half Point Availability Basin Month in HUC7 Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Water Right Information Appl. IS70864/ protested / administrative hold Pine Creek > Snake River - 18E 1996/ abv Fuller Creek 20.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 18.6 16.9 16.9 16.9 20.0 used in water availability analysis 1st half Clear Creek > Pine Creek - 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Appl. MF235 / Cert. 59540 20F 2nd at mouth 15.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Priority June 26, 1970 half 1st half Appl. IS72170/ protested / administrative hold Clear Creek > Pine Creek - 20F 2nd 1996 / NOT at mouth ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? half used in water availability analysis 1st half East Pine Creek > Pine 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Appl. MF237 / Cert. 59541 21H 2nd Creek - at mouth 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Priority June 26, 1970 half East Pine Creek > Pine Appl. IS70870/ protested / administrative hold 21H Creek - at mouth 6.0 10.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 1996/used in water availability analysis Appl. IS70863 / protested / administrative hold Pine Creek > Snake River - 23F 1996/ above Long Branch Creek 40.0 50.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 used in water availability analysis 1st half Duck Creek > North Pine 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Appl. IS72175 / Cert. 73330 24C 2nd Creek - at mouth 3.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Priority Nov. 8, 1990 half 1st half Elk Creek > Lake Fork 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Appl. IS70871 / Cert. 73320 25E 2nd Creek - at mouth 3.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Priority Nov. 8, 1990 half 1st half Appl. IS72179 / protested / administrative hold Lake Fork Creek > North 25F 2nd 1996/ Pine Creek - abv Elk Creek 2.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 half used in water availability analysis Appl. IS72180 / protested / administrative hold Lake Fork Creek > North 25F 1996/ Pine Creek - at mouth 7.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 used in water availability analysis 1st half Little Elk Creek > North 2.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 1.66 0.92 0.95 1.18 1.74 2.0 Appl. IS72182 / Cert. 73333 26D 2nd Pine Creek - at mouth 2.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 1.66 0.92 0.95 1.18 1.74 2.0 Priority Nov. 8, 1990 half 1st half North Pine Creek > Pine 20.0 20.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Appl. MF241 / Cert. 59534 26E 2nd Creek - at mouth 20.0 20.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Priority June 26, 1970 half 1st half Pine Creek > Snake River - 40.0 40.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Appl. MF242 / Cert. 59542 27D 2nd at mouth 40.0 40.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Priority June 26, 1970 half NOTES: (1) In-stream water rights and pending applications for instream water rights exist only within the Pine Creek HUC5 Watershed of the assessment area. (2) Monthly instream flows for pending applications were obtained from Oregon Water Resources Department water availability analyses; half-month data was not listed in these analyses.

4-110

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Reservation of Water for Future Economic Development - In 1992 the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) filed for two reservations of water with the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD): Clear Creek (6,000 acre-feet) and East Pine Creek (4,000 acre-feet ). These reservations were combined as described in Oregon Administrative Rule 690-509-0140: “Pine Creek Subbasin Reservation - Ten thousand (10,000) acre-feet of unappropriated water of Pine Creek and tributaries above Long Branch, tributary to the Snake River, are reserved for multipurpose reservoirs to be constructed in the future. The priority date of the reservation is November 6, 1992.” (http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_690/690_509.html Accessed 16Apr2012; also see reservation RN 80904 A). In about 2005, the Water and Stream Health (WASH) Committee was established in Baker County to study the feasibility of constructing additional multi-purpose reservoirs. The previously studied Melhorn Mill dam site on East Pine Creek was selected as one of four study sites (Young, personal knowledge). The Bureau of Reclamation completed a feasibility study in late 2011 and recommended no further study of this site, due to a low benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.23 (BOR 2011, p. 210).

Storage Rights - There are many dams/reservoirs in the assessment area. The largest ones are listed in tables 4-25 and 4-26. Small reservoirs are not summarized or discussed in any detail in this assessment. The small reservoirs are mostly stock-watering ponds with surface areas ranging from about 0.02 to 0.5 acres with dams ranging from about 3 to 9 feet in height. Small reservoirs have been constructed on public and private lands throughout the assessment area, mostly on small intermittent and perennial streams in the Pine Creek, Birch Creek and Benson Creek watersheds. The three dams/reservoirs on the Snake River are described in table 4-25. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorized these facilities in 1971 through FERC License P-1971-079. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for relicensing of the 1,167-megawatt Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project was completed in 2007 (FERC 2007). Table 4-25 Idaho Power Company dams and reservoirs. Dam in HUC7 HUC7 Name Reservoir Name / Storage/ Dam Surface Area (sq mi) Source Height/ Dam Location Spillway Elevation

13C Snake River – Road Brownlee / 1,426,700 ac ft 23.4 sq mi Canyon Snake River and 420 ft T8S, R47E, Sec 25, NE tributaries 1,680 ft SE 14F Snake River – Oxbow / 58,200 ac ft 1.8 sq mi Cottonwood Creek Snake River and 175 ft T7S, R48E, Sec 10, SW tributaries 1,805 ft NW 17E Snake River – Eagle Hells Canyon/ 188,000 ac ft 3.9 sq mi Bar Snake River and 330 ft T4S, R49E, Sec 4, NE tributaries 2085 ft SE

4-111

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-26 Irrigation reservoirs and other large reservoirs. Dam in HUC7 HUC7 Name Reservoir Name / Source Height (ft) Storage (ac- Permit #& Cert. # Location Twp/Rng/Sec/40/40 ft) 02A Upper Birch Creek Unnamed res / est10+ est 5 none found T14S, R45E, Sec 10, SENW (1.0-acre water surface Birch Creek area) 02A Upper Birch Creek Unnamed res / est10+ est 15 none found T14S, R45E, Sec 10, SWSE; Sec 15, NWNE (2.8-acre Birch Creek water surface area) 02E BirchCr - Kivett Unnamed res / est10+ est 10 none found T14S, R45E, Sec 23 SENE (2.2-acre water surface Reservoirs Birch Creek area) 02E BirchCr – Kivett Kivett Res 1 / 18 30 R-884/C 29932 T14S, R43E, Sec 22, NENE & Sec 23 NWNW Reservoirs unnamed stream 45 R-1174 C 29934

02E BirchCr - Kivett Kivett Res 2 / unnamed streams 17 22.6 R-1175 T14S, R43E, Sec 23, Reservoirs C 29936 NENW, SENW 02E BirchCr - Kivett Kivett Res 3 / 26 39.2 R-1176 C 29938 T14S, R43E, Sec 15, Reservoirs Birch Creek NESE, NWSE, SESE 03D Lower Love Love Reservoir / unnamed stream 22 1520 Claim SW-614 POD8 T15S, R45E, Sec 20 SE & 29 NE Reservoir Creek & Birch Creek (Malheur County) 04C Birch Creek – Vane Ranch Res / 32 56.05 R-990 T15S, R44E, Sec 13, NESE (Malheur County) Lockett Road Birch Creek C 20604 04E Lower Birch Creek McBride Res / Birch Creek 22 40 R-1110 C 21704 T15S, R45E, Sec 9, NESW, NWSW, SESW (Malheur Co) 05C Lower Benson Benson Reservoir / Benson Creek 8 100 R-512 C 5819 T14S, R44E, Sec 25, SWNE, SENW, NESW, NWSE Creek 18A Upper Pine Creek Upper Twin Lake Res / WFk 10 175 T6S, R45E, Sec 18 & 19 C 27737 Pine Creek 18A Upper Pine Creek Lower Twin Lake Res / WFk 22 45 T6S, R45E, Sec 18 & 19 C 27737 Pine Creek 18A Middle Fork Pine Red Mountain Res / trib of <10 5 R-79670 T6S, R45E, Sec 8, NESE Creek Middle Fork Pine Creek C 71516 18B East Fork Pine East Lake Res / 15 42.5 R-2309 C 51714 T6S, R45E, Sec 10, SENW Creek trib East Fork Pine Creek 90 C 27737 19E Lower Sag Creek Laird Reservoir / Sag Creek 21 67 R-11769 C 86086 T8S, R46E, Sec 28, NWSE & SWSE

4-112

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-26 Irrigation reservoirs and other large reservoirs. Dam in HUC7 HUC7 Name Reservoir Name / Source Height (ft) Storage (ac- Permit #& Cert. # Location Twp/Rng/Sec/40/40 ft) 20A Upper Clear Creek Melhorn Reservoir / Clear Creek 20 216 R-657 T6S, R46E, Sec 7, C 29929 SWNE & SENE 20A Upper Clear Creek Clear Creek Res / West Fork 16 257 R-515 T6S, R45E, Sec 12, Clear Creek C 29927 NE & NW 21A Upper East Pine Lost Lake Res / Lost Lake tribs 6 45 R-417 T6S, R46E, Sec 17, SWNE Creek C 3481 21H Lower East Pine Bear Wallow Res (RKMoseley 20 180 R-923 T7S, R46E, Sec 21 & 28 Creek Res) / Bear Wallow Gulch C 31021 22B Lower Crow Crow Reservoir / Crow Res 16 51 R-1079 C 68737 T8S, R47E, Sec 31, SWSW Reservoir Creek Creek (Deer Gulch) T9S, R47E, Sec 6, N1/2NW 25A Upper Lake Fork Sugarloaf Res / Lake Fork Creek 27 260 R-983 T6S, R46E, Sec 5, E1/2 SW Creek C26284 25A Upper Lake Fork Fish Lake Res / Lake Fork Creek 17 747 R-1116/ C 35414 T6S, R46E, Sec 16, NE, E1/2 NW Creek 78 R-8213 C 58684 R-8213 raised spillway 1 ft. June 1-Oct 1

4-113

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-27 summarizes large reservoir storage by watershed and by Snake River tributary. Snake River reservoirs are not included. Pine Creek has the largest total storage (2,258 acre-feet); Birch Creek has the largest water storage reservoir (1,675 acre-feet).

Table 4-27 Total storage for large reservoirs by subwatershed. HUC 6 HUC 6 Name Total Large Reservoir Storage Total Storage for Snake Short Code by HUC 6 (acre-feet) River Trib. 02 Upper Birch Creek 167 03 Love Reservoir Creek 1,675 Birch Creek: 1,938 04 Lower Birch Creek 96 05 Benson Creek 100 Benson Creek: 100 18 Upper Pine Creek 357 19 McMullen Slough 67 Pine Creek: 2,258 20 Clear Creek 473 21 East Pine Creek 225 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 51 25 Lake Fork Creek 1,085

Ground Water Rights - The larger ground-water rights in the assessment area are listed in table A4.5 (appendix 4.1). Most of these rights are associated with wells, but some are drain tiles or sumps. Well log information is provided for these water rights and for other high-rate wells. The OWRD water rights database does not cross-walk water rights with well logs, so there is an imperfect match between the two data sets. Note that two of the wells are located in the upper Birch Creek watershed (HUC7 02C); the remainder are located in the Pine Creek watershed. There are many other low-flow wells in the assessment area with or without registered well logs that provide water primarily for domestic and stock use under the State of Oregon groundwater exempt use statute. Table 4-28 summarizes ground-water rights for Pine Creek by subwatershed. Table 4-28 Summary of large ground-water rights by subwatershed. HUC 6 HUC 6 Name Rate Uses and Acres Code (cfs or gpm) 02 Upper Birch Creek 3.36 cfs 268.6 acres - Irrigation 18 Upper Pine Creek 1.50 cfs Mining 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.43 cfs 33.8 acres - Irrigation 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.94 cfs 91.9 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 19 McMullen Slough 0.48 cfs 38.2 acres - Irrigation 19 McMullen Slough 6.32 cfs 642.9 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 19 McMullen Slough 2.59 cfs Municipal 20 Clear Creek 0.49 cfs 39.2 acres - Irrigation 20 Clear Creek 1.73 cfs 143.0 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 21 East Pine Creek 0.17 cfs 14.2 acres - Irrigation 21 East Pine Creek 3.83 cfs 348.2 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 2.03 cfs 257.2 acres - Irrigation 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 12.01 cfs 960.3 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 1.31 cfs Sprinkling, Pond, Fire Protection 27 Lower Pine Creek 2.09 cfs Fish Propagation Total 39.28 cfs

4-114

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

There are no Ground-Water-Limited or Critical-Ground-Water Areas in the assessment area (http://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/PUBS/aquabook_protections.shtml). However, since 1991 new permits for ground water use in the state of Oregon have been limited to ground-water withdrawals that do not interfere with or diminish surface-water flow in streams (OAR 690-009- 0010). OWRD assumes that shallow ground water within ¼ mile of a stream is hydrologically connected to that stream, and within one mile may be connected.

Summary of Surface Water, Storage, and Ground Water Rights by WAB – Up to date information on water rights can be queried and displayed on an interactive map at the Oregon Department of Water Resources website (http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/index.aspx ).

OWRD data for Birch Creek does not include storage for the 1,500 acre-foot Love Reservoir and may not include data for points of diversion (PODs) and rates from pre-1909 registrations SW- 614, 617 and 618. Hibbard Creek appears to include information from registration SW-152. Information for Lee Creek, Sag Creek and McMullen Slough is improperly recorded in the OWRD database. These three streams are listed as tributary to Pine Creek. Carson Creek is listed as a tributary to McMullen Slough. A field review showed that Carson Creek is a tributary to Lee Creek. Lee Creek and Sag Creek converge into a single stream that is a tributary of McMillan Slough, and McMullen Slough is a tributary to Pine Creek.

Inter-basin Transfers of Water - Water was once transferred from Little Eagle Creek tributaries into upper Boulder Creek and Deep Creek for mining purposes; abandoned/dysfunctional ditches exist in upper Boulder Creek in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, T6S, R45E (Bliss 2009). Water may also have been transferred from Summit Creek into the Lee Creek drainage for mining purposes. Current inter-basin transfers of water are from Blue Creek, a tributary of the Imnaha River, into East Fork Pine Creek, and from Marble Creek, a tributary of the Burnt River, into an unnamed tributary of the Snake River. Blue Creek is a perennial stream; and Marble Creek is an intermittent stream. Table 4-28 shows water rights for water transfers from Blue Creek. Table 4-29 Inter-basin transfers of water. Water is Permit / POD Location: Rate POU Location: Acres Priority Applicant diverted Cert. Twp, Rng, Sec, (cfs or gpm) Twp, Rng, Sec Irrigated or Year into this No. 40 40 Other Use HUC 7 07A -- T13S, R44E, Sec ? T13S, R45E, Secs ? ? ? 25, SE NE 30, 31 18B S-28730 T6S, R45E, 1.95 cfs T7S, R45E, 2.0 irrig 1963 Sly & C 3831 Sec 4, NE NW Sec 36 76.1 supp Makinson 18B S-28731 T6S, R45E, 0.53 cfs T14S, R43E, 21.2 supp 1963 Johnson C 38001 Sec 4, NE NW Sec 23, 24

Intra-basin Transfers of Water - Pine Creek has the most complex system of intra-basin water transfers via ditch systems in the State of Oregon according to Rick Lusk, OWRD Water Master. Affected subwatersheds include Upper Pine Creek (18), McMullen Slough (19), Clear Creek

4-115

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

(20), East Pine Creek (21), Deer Creek-Pine Creek (22), Fish Creek-Pine Creek (23) and Lake Fork Creek (24). Birch Creek has three primary intra-basin water transfer ditches that affect Upper Birch Creek (02), Love Reservoir Creek (03), and Lower Birch Creek (04) HUC6s.

Consumptive Water Use - The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) estimated consumptive water use for water rights within water availability basins (WABs). Table A4.6 (appendix 4.1), lists these consumptive water use estimates by month for the 63 WABs in the assessment area. These consumptive uses are summarized in table 4-32. Not all WAB boundaries match watershed boundaries, so WAB boundaries were left out of this table.

Evaporation from Water Bodies - The OWEB consumptive use methodology does not consider water loss by evaporation from reservoir surfaces (Bliss, personal communication with OWRD). An estimate of evaporation losses, based on evaporation data in the Climate section, is shown in table 4-30.

Table 4-30 Estimated evaporation rate from water bodies by elevation. Water Body Elevation (feet) Evaporation Rate Evaporation Rate (inches/year) (feet/year) 6000-8000 30 - 34 2.50 - 2.83 4000-6000 34 - 38 2.83 - 3.17 2000-4000 38 - 42 3.17 - 3.50 1700-2000 42 - 43 3.50 - 3.58

Table 4-30, below, provides an estimate of annual evaporation losses from the three Snake River Reservoirs. Estimates of evaporation loss from irrigation reservoirs require estimates of average surface area by month during the ice-free period as they shrink toward minimum pool from spring to summer, and then slowly expand in the fall.

Table 4-31 Estimated annual evaporation from Idaho Power Company reservoirs. Reservoir Name Average Annual Evaporation Annual Evaporation Water Surface Area Rate (acre-ft) (acres) (feet/year) Brownlee < 14,900 3.58 < 53,000 Oxbow 1,150 3.58 4,000 Hells Canyon 2,500 3.58 9,000

4-116

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-32 Summary of consumptive water use by HUC6 watershed.

HUC HUC 6 Name Consumptive Use (cfs) as a Percentage of 50% Exceedance Stream Flow 6 Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 01 Road Gulch - Snake 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 River 02, Upper Birch Creek, 0.14 0.40 0.81 0.93 1.55 1.20 0.39 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.07 03, Love Res Creek, 04 Lower Birch Creek 05 Benson Creek - Snake 0.09 0.21 0.40 0.67 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 River 07 Ryan Gulch - Snake 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 River 08 Morgan Creek - Snake 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 River 0.10 0.70 0.98 1.24 1.62 1.20 0.45 09 Dennett Creek - Snake 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 River 10 Raft Creek - Snake 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 River 12 Cottonwood Creek - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Snake River 13 Dukes Creek - Snake 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 River 14 Oxbow Dam - Snake 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 River 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.40 0.52 0.64 0.81 0.61 0.46 0.09 0.09 0.09 16 McGraw Creek - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Snake River 17 Hells Canyon Dam - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Snake River 18 Upper Pine Creek abv 0.37 0.42 0.52 3.95 5.54 7.12 8.21 6.03 4.32 0.35 0.37 0.38 Fuller Creek 20 Clear Creek 0.21 0.34 0.60 19.1 47.9 39.0 12.8 5.21 2.77 0.15 0.16 0.20 21 East Pine Creek 0.20 0.42 0.76 15.6 38.4 30.6 10.1 4.07 2.14 0.08 0.11 0.16 24 Upper North Pine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Creek 25 Lake Fork Creek 0.57 0.90 1.76 7.48 11.1 12.2 11.5 8.18 5.78 0.47 0.52 0.59 24, Upper N Pine Creek, 0.81 1.39 2.52 9.44 15.6 13.9 9.11 5.84 3.99 0.36 0.50 0.75 25, Lake Fork Creek, 26 Lower N Pine Creek HUC Pine Creek 2.55 4.60 8.39 62.3 118.0 107 65.7 40.1 26.4 1.35 1.68 2.33 5

Water Availability - The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) methodology for calculating water availability first estimates Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow, (Table A4.7, appendix 4.1) then subtracts Consumptive Use and Storage (Table 4-31). Table A4.8 (Appendix 4.1), shows the Net Water Available calculations, by month, for the 63 WABs in the assessment

4-117

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment area. Table 4-33, below, is a summary of the WABs by HUC7 that have negative water availability numbers during any month of the year. Table 4-33 WAB Months With Negative Water Availability Numbers. HUC 6 HUC 6 Name Rate Uses and Acres Code (cfs or gpm) 02 Upper Birch Creek 3.36 cfs 268.6 acres - Irrigation 18 Upper Pine Creek 1.50 cfs Mining 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.43 cfs 33.8 acres - Irrigation 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.94 cfs 91.9 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 19 McMullen Slough 0.48 cfs 38.2 acres - Irrigation 19 McMullen Slough 6.32 cfs 642.9 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 19 McMullen Slough 2.59 cfs Municipal 20 Clear Creek 0.49 cfs 39.2 acres - Irrigation 20 Clear Creek 1.73 cfs 143.0 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 21 East Pine Creek 0.17 cfs 14.2 acres - Irrigation 21 East Pine Creek 3.83 cfs 348.2 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 2.03 cfs 257.2 acres - Irrigation 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 12.01 cfs 960.3 acres - Supplemental Irrigation 22 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 1.31 cfs Sprinkling, Pond, Fire Protection 27 Lower Pine Creek 2.09 cfs Fish Propagation Total 39.28 cfs

Water Availability for New Water Rights - Streams that may have adequate flow for new water right appropriations for storage, for consumptive use, and for protection of in-stream flows are identified in table A4.6 (appendix 4.1). See far right column labeled Storage (acre-feet), and monthly stream flows (cfs) that are positive numbers. For example, the analysis indicates the following amounts of water are available for storage in the most agriculturally-developed tributaries of the Snake River: Pine Creek (149,000 acre-feet), Birch Creek (3,010 acre-feet), Benson Creek (1,030 acre-feet), and Hibbard Creek (1,230 acre-feet). For a stream such as Bay Horse Creek (116 acre-feet), the analysis indicates water is available for storage during only 8 of 12 months. Caution: just because the methodology indicates water is available; further on-site analysis and monitoring should be done to determine actual water availability. For example, the 1,500 acre-feet of storage in Love Reservoir in Birch Creek needs to be subtracted from available water storage because it was not included in the analysis. Water is not available for appropriation during months shown in table 4-34.

Stream Flow Restoration Opportunities - Data in tables A4.8 and 4-33 were used as a level one screening process to determine potential stream flow restoration opportunities, per guidance in the OWEB Manual. Sixteen WABs with negative numbers (Table 4-33) and WABs with small positive numbers (table A4.3) are recommended for further evaluation as stream-flow restoration opportunities. The first step is validation of water availability.

The water availability numbers in table A4.8 were derived from extrapolation of data from a few stream gages to many non-gaged streams. There are no stream channel metrics and stream flow measurements for more than 95% of the 63 streams. It is recommended that (1) on site analysis

4-118

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment be done to determine bank full width, depth and flow, low flow, peak flow, and effects of exercise of water rights for comparison with the model outputs, and (2) the calculations for each stream be compared with known water rights and uses to determine that all water uses were included in the calculations.

Table 4-34 WAB months with negative water availability numbers. HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Months with negative water availability numbers Code May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 08A Bay Horse Creek > Snake River - at mouth -0.23 -0.50 -0.39 -0.24 10B Big Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.21 -0.07 -0.14 -0.15 -0.13 -0.03 15B Hunsaker Creek > Snake River - at mouth -0.25 -0.51 -0.41 -0.30 -0.04 15B Hunter Creek > Snake River- at mouth -0.01 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 20F Clear Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth -5.21 -3.77 21D East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Beecher -0.20 Creek 21G Dry Creek > East Pine Creek - at mouth -1.64 -3.58 -1.16 -0.35 -0.01 21H East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth -5.62 -4.41 -2.23 23F Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Long Branch -24.9 -17.1 Creek 24C Duck Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth -0.88 -0.56 25E Elk Creek > Lake Fork Creek - at mouth -0.27 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - abv Elk -2.12 Creek 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth -0.68 26D Little Elk Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth -6.18 -2.85 -1.24 -0.78 -0.94 26E North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth -6.74 -4.09 27D Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth -29.0 -18.8

Below are some examples of preliminary analysis and analysis needs:

 Example 1: confirm for Hibbard Creek that diversion of 3.72 cfs into seven ditches described in registration SW-152 was included in the water availability analysis.  Example 2: confirm that water rights listed in SW-614, 617 and 618, including 1,500 acre-feet of storage in Love Reservoir, were not included in the water availability analysis. This is flagged because table A4.5 (appendix 4.1) only includes 154.61 acre-feet of storage for Birch Creek.  Example 3: for Birch Creek, the numbers in the table suggest there is adequate water at the mouth in the summer; ODFW has no data to support this conclusion, and at least one diversion near the Lockett Road crossing (stream mile 5) appears to divert all stream flow year-long to two reservoirs (October through March) and for irrigation (April through September). Thus, small positive numbers at a stream pour point may not indicate stream flow is adequate all year, especially higher up in the drainage.

4-119

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Example 4: for Pine Creek at mouth, a modeled mean monthly flow of 31 cfs for August becomes minus 29 cfs after subtracting the 60 cfs minimum stream flow requirement; thus, negative flow months do not mean there is no stream flow.  Example 5: for Black Canyon Creek, no stream flow was observed near the mouth in October 2010, a high snowpack year, although the model indicates there should be.

Potentially Abandoned Water Rights - There are water uses included in the water availability analyses that appear to be abandoned; if this is true, and the water rights are canceled, the affected water availability analyses should show increased net stream flow. The online water rights map on the Oregon Water Resources Department website of PODs and places of use (POU) was used to identify a preliminary list of potentially abandoned water rights which are shown in table 4-33 below. The table also includes PODs/POUs on the state map within the Snake River for which no water rights could be found. If a water right has not been exercised for more than five years then it may be canceled.

Table 4-35 Potentially abandoned water uses. Water Source Rate Priority POU Location Comments Right # (cfs) Date C-11469 Ballard 0.25 1931 T6S, R48E, Sec POU inundated by Hells Canyon Reservoir Creek 11 C-2103 Snake 0.10 1918 T12S, R45E, Abandoned general railroad use River Sec 12 Snake T9S, R46E, Sec OWRD digital map shows POU under Brownlee River 25 Res, but no water right was found Snake T15S, R45E, OWRD digital map shows POU on island in River Sec 14,15 Snake River but no water right was found Snake T15S, R45E, OWRD digital map shows POU on island in River Sec 23,24 Snake River but no water right was found Snake T15S, OWRD digital map shows POU on Darrows River R45E, Sec 24, Islands in Snake River but no water right was R46E, Sec 19 found. C-20684 East Fork 1.33 1915 T6S, R45E, Sec Abandoned pipeline and hydropower plant for Pine Creek 23 Cornucopia Mines; bull trout habitat. C-10435 Lost Horse 3.0 1896 T6S, R45E, Sec A small amount of water may be used for mining Creek 34 but not 3.0 cfs; a small amount of water may be used for irrigation but 3.0 acres is not being irrigated; bull trout habitat. C-7585 Deep Creek 0.5 1925 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Pine Creek 1.0 1925 Sec 3 but not 1.5 cfs; bull trout habitat. C-11514 Deep Creek 0.5 1934 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Pine Creek 1.0 1934 Sec 3 but not 1.5 cfs; bull trout habitat. C-11493 Boulder 3.0 1934 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Creek Sec 3 but not 1.5 cfs; POD and ditch abandoned/dysfunctional; bull trout habitat. C-3886 Boulder 5.0 1912 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Creek Sec 10 but not 5.0 cfs; POD and ditch abandoned/dysfunctional; bull trout habitat. C-12098 Pine Creek 8.0 1934 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Sec 3 but not 8.0 cfs; bull trout habitat. C-12112 Pine Creek 8.0 1934 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Sec 3 but not 8.0 cfs; bull trout habitat.

4-120

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 4-35 Potentially abandoned water uses. Water Source Rate Priority POU Location Comments Right # (cfs) Date C-1644 Pine Creek 0.1 1911 T7S, R45E Irrigation right located upstream of Moore Ditch; Sec 15 no use observed since 1990. C-11017 Turner 0.5 1933 T7S, R45E Mining water use ditch to the site was abandoned Creek 0.5 Sec 15, 22 long before 2001 site inspection by Tim Bliss; McKinnon POU on NF land. Creek C-10817 Carson 2.0 1933 T7S, R45E Permit map shows diversion/ditch from Summit Creek Sec 22 Creek to Carson Creek (currently abandoned) that & flood is not mentioned on the certificate; no water use is waters occurring on SE NE Sec 22 on National Forest Land. C-11491 Pine Creek 8.0 1936 T7S, R45E A small amount of water may be used for mining Sec 22 but not 8.0 cfs. Map shows pipeline from Posey Valley Ditch to POU. Discussion

Critical Questions Hydrology

What land uses are present in your watershed? The predominant land uses are livestock production (grazing) and hydroelectric power production from the three Snake River reservoirs. Mining activities, both historical and current, are present throughout the Brownlee Reservoir subbasin. Irrigation dependent agriculture occurs mainly in Pine Valley. The small population and large amount of public land limits residential use. What is the flood history in your watershed? The Snake River, Pine Creek and other streams near the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin typically experience more than 10 major peak- and low-flow events each year. These peak flows are rainfall, rain-on-snow and/or snowmelt generated. There are many more rain-on-snow events in the Pine Creek watershed than predicted by scientific literature. Rain-generated and rain-on-snow-generated peak flows often occur at different times during the same storm, or at the same time at different elevations. Is there a probability that land uses in the basin have a significant effect on peak flows?

The analysis indicates that rangelands of the assessment area have a LOW RISK of peak flow enhancement (table 4.25.) when analyzed broadly. However, when known problem areas are analyzed, a few subwatersheds such as Boulder Creek should be HIGH RISK because of several miles of gullies that accelerate runoff. Moderate to High risk of peak flow enhancement can occur in low elevation rangelands following wildfire, such as the Foster Gulch Fire in 2006 and can persist for a few years. All subwatersheds in the

4-121

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Brownlee Reservoir subbasin have Low Potential for peak flow enhancement due to roads. Is there a probability that land uses in the basin have a significant effect on low flows? Low flows in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin are affected by withdrawals for irrigation use and water storage for irrigation and hydroelectric power production. Most of the irrigated agriculture occurs in the Pine Creek and Birch Creek Watersheds. These two watersheds have little or no water in some stream reaches during the summer. The three Hells Canyon Complex reservoirs changed the flow regime in the Snake River. Critical Questions Water Use

What are the primary beneficial uses of water in the watershed? The primary use of water is for irrigation, either by adjudicated water-rights or as storage. Mining historically used large amounts of water but current mining use of water is low. Some municipal use occurs by the City of Halfway. Many of the 1,500 residents in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin have wells for domestic use. The reservoirs on the Snake River provide hydroelectric power. Is water use mostly from ground water or surface water? Most water use is from surface water. Pine Creek Watershed has the largest use (table A4.6, appendix 4.1) of surface water. Ground water use in the Brownlee Reservoir subbasin is 39.28 cfs (table 4-28). Two of the wells are located in the upper Birch Creek watershed and the rest are located in the Pine Creek watershed. What type of storage has been constructed in the watershed? Most storage is in the three reservoirs on the Snake River. They have a total surface area of 29.1 square miles. The estimated evaporation is more than 66,000 acre feet per year. There are twenty-two larger reservoirs and numerous small ponds in the Brownlee Reservoir subbasin. Total water storage in the three largest basins is: 1,938 acre feet of storage in the Birch Creek watershed; 100 acre feet in the Benson Creek watershed; and 2,258 acre feet in the Pine Creek watershed. Are there any transfers of water into or out of the watershed? A small amount of water is transferred into the basin, 2.48 cfs into the Pine Creek watershed and an unknown amount into a tributary of the Snake River. The Pine Creek Watershed has the largest system of intra-basin transfers in Oregon. Are any unauthorized uses of water occurring in the watershed?

4-122

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

It is not known if any unauthorized uses are occurring in the subbasin. The OWRD has recently completed an inventory of all points of diversion in the Pine Creek Watershed. This will enable accurate monitoring of water use in the largest watershed in the subbasin. Do water uses in the watershed have an effect on peak flows or low flows? Irrigation withdrawals have an effect on low flows in the Pine Creek watershed. The comparatively small amount of storage outside of the Snake River does not affect peak flows.

Data Gaps Hydrologic Units – no data gaps identified Climate  Meadow Creek SNOTEL 1980-2010 information needs to be summarized.  Morgan Mountain RAWS site period of record needs to be summarized. Hydrography  Accurate map of existing natural hydrography (ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams) and altered hydrography (by ditches, canals, levees, roads).  Complete point of diversion inventory. Hydrology  Gage data for streams other than Pine Creek.  Validation of OWRD modeled mean monthly stream flows.  Complete culvert function inventory.  More accurate rain-on-snow model.  Baseline stream cross-section data. Water Use  Complete water diversion information for all points of diversion (amount, months, water measurement device or control structure).  Validation of modeled water use for non-gaged streams.

Key Findings Hydrologic Units  There are three hydrologic unit data sets: (1) interagency watersheds through HUC6, (2) HUC7s watersheds delineated specifically for this assessment, and (3) OWRD water availability basins.

4-123

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Climate  A study at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed (1962-2006) indicates the climate has warmed several degrees Fahrenheit over the period of record. Hydrography  Hydrography maps are inaccurate and incomplete, especially in valleys and in high elevation forestland and rangeland. Hydrology  Climate Change: o Research at Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed found the transient snow zone has risen about 1,000 feet over the 45-year period from 1962 to 2006; The onset of snowmelt peak flow and summer low flow are about 1 month earlier.  Stream Gages, Peak Flows, and Flooding: o Stream gage data in the assessment area is limited to the Snake River dams and Pine Creek near Oxbow; data is also available for eight sites near the study area. o OWRD modeled mean monthly stream flows are available for 44 streams at their confluence with the Snake River, and for 19 other points in Pine Creek watershed. o Rain, rain-on-snow and snowmelt all contribute to peak flow events. o Peak flows at the Snake River Weiser gage have occurred every month from October through June, but typically occur from March through June. o Peak flows at the Pine Creek confluence with the Snake River have occurred every month from December through June, but typically occur from March through May. o Peak flows for Benson and Birch Creeks are most common in March and April. o Peak flows of the Snake River are reduced by Brownlee Reservoir and by reservoirs upstream of the assessment area. o High elevation rangelands in the Pine Creek drainage have higher and more frequent peak flows due to below-site-potential ground cover, increased channel incision, and/or expansion of the drainage network. o Flooding of portions of Pine Creek floodplain in Pine Valley is exacerbated by high sediment load from Boulder Creek and Upper Pine Creek.  Multi-Annual Peak Flows and Low Flows: o Stream gage records for the Snake River, Pine Creek and other streams near the assessment area show that streams typically experience more than 10 major peak flow and low flow events each year. o Peak flows are rainfall, rain-on-snow and/or snowmelt-generated.

4-124

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Frequent Rain-on-Snow Events: o Preliminary research by Bliss (white paper on file at the PBWC office in Baker City) suggests there are many more rain-on-snow events in Pine Creek watershed than indicated by the scientific literature. o In the Pine Creek drainage, rain-generated and rain-on-snow-generated peak flows often occur at different times during the same storm, or at the same time at different elevations.  Forestry and Forest Fires: o HUC6 watersheds 08 (Morgan Creek-Snake River), and 18, 19 and 20 (Upper Pine Creek, McMullen Slough and Clear Creek) were found to have Low-to- Moderate Peak Flow Enhancement Potential from forest management activities; all other watersheds have low risk; large wildfires increase risk.  Agricultural Lands and Rangelands: o At the HUC6 level of analysis, rangelands are rated Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential; large rangeland wildfires increase risk for a few years. o An alternative methodology is presented for rating rangelands that places Benson Creek and similar gullied watersheds in the Moderate Risk category. o Invasive plant species have changed and will continue to change rangeland hydrology; bulbous bluegrass, whitetop, medusahead, ryegrass, and other plants with large annual biomass production appear to be increasing ground cover above natural conditions in low-elevation rangelands.  Roaded Area/Road Density: o At the HUC6 level of analysis, roads are rated Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. o At the HUC7 level of analysis, 12 HUC7s have a Moderate rating due to a road density greater than 4.2 miles per square mile.  Impervious Surfaces: o At the HUC6 level of analysis, impervious surfaces are rated Low Peak Flow Enhancement Potential. o At the HUC7 level of analysis, McMullen Slough (City of Halfway) has a Moderate rating due to impervious surface area of more than 5%. Water Use  The oldest priority water rights are for irrigation and stock use.  The largest developed water use is for hydropower; the second largest is for irrigation. The largest irrigation use is in Pine Creek; the second largest is in Birch Creek.  Hydropower and irrigation water uses are partly consumptive consisting of evaporation from reservoir surfaces and evapotranspiration from ditches and fields.

4-125

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Evaporation from the three Snake River reservoirs is up to 66,000 acre-feet/year.  Up to 178,636 acre-feet of water (of which 149,000 acre-feet is in Pine Creek) is available for economic development based on the OWRD water availability studies for 60 water availability basins.  The available water calculation for Birch Creek appear to be 50% too high; it does not appear to include storage in Love Reservoir shown on SW-614, 617 and 618.

References

Bliss, T. M., 2004, Watershed Existing Condition Report for the Pine Valley Vegetation Management Project, Whitman Unit, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Dec. 13, 2004.

Bliss, T. M., 2009, Boulder Creek Watershed Assessment. Pine Creek Work Group, Powder Basin Watershed Council. Baker City, Oregon. December 7, 2009. 38 pages plus photos.

Bliss, T.M., 2012, Preliminary Rain-on-Snow Event Model for Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin, on file at the Powder Basin Watershed Council Office in Baker City.

BLM, 2006, A Report on the Potential Use of USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Data by the Bureau of Land Management. Technical Note 419. April 2006. USDI Bureau of Land Management.

BOR, 2011, Draft Appraisal Study Report – Eastern Oregon Water Storage Appraisal Study for the Burnt River, Powder River and Pine Creek Basins. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Snake River Area Office, Boise, Idaho. 298 pages. (11.8 MB) http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/studies/oregon/burntriver/draft-apprais-study.pdf Accessed 1May2012.

Cooley, K.R. and D.C. Robertson, 1983, Monitoring a Rain-on-Snow Event, USDA ARS Northwest Watershed Research Center, Boise, Idaho. Presented at the Western Snow Conference, April 19-22, 1983, Vancouver, Washington. http://www.westernsnowconference.org/proceedings/1983.htm, accessed 5 Apr 2012.

FERC, 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Project, Division of Hydroposer Licensing, Washington, D.C.

Geocraft, 2012, Global Warming: a chilling perspective. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html Accessed 6May2012.

4-126

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Gradstein, Felix et al, 2004, A Geologic Time Scale 2004. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 412.

Hanson, C.L., D. Marks and S.S. Van Vactor, 2001, Long-term climate database, Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, Idaho, United States. Northwest Watershed Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Boise, Idaho, USA. In Water Resources Research, Vol. 37, No. 11, Pages 2839–2841, November 2001. ftp://ftp.nwrc.ars.usda.gov/publicdatabase/reynoldscreek/documents/wrr_climate.pdf, Accessed 30Apr2012.

Halley, M.C., S.O. White, & E. W. Watkins, 2012, Table 1, Definition of Hydrologic Soil Groups, in ArcView GIS Extension for Estimating Curve Numbers. Webarticle accessed 12May2012 at http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/pap657/p657.htm.

Idaho Power Company, 1997, Pine Creek near Oxbow Oregon Gage 13290190. Idaho Power Company, Water Year 1997, Water Resources Data. Pp. 66. http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/ourEnvironment/waterResourcesdata/WaterResourcesData201 0.pdf, Accessed 02 Mar 2012.

Idaho Power Company, 2010, Idaho Power Co., Water Year 2010, Water Resources Data. http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/ourEnvironment/waterResourcesdata/WaterResourcesData201 0.pdf, Accessed 02 Mar 2012.

Idaho Power Company, 2012a, Instantaneous 15-minute peak flow and low flow data for water years 1990-2011 for Oxbow Dam, Hells Canyon Dam, Pine Creek near Oxbow, Pine Creek at Halfway, Powder River nr Richland, Eagle Creek nr New Bridge, and Burnt River at Huntington gages.. Provided by Pete Vidmar, Idaho Power Company, Boise, Idaho.

Idaho State University, 2012, The Lake Bonneville Flood. http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/lkbflood/lbf.htm Accessed 06May2012 .

Jarrett, R.D., and Malde, H.E, 1987, Paleodischarge of the late Pleistocene Bonneville Flood, Snake River, Idaho, computed from new evidence: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 99, no. 1, p. 127-134.

Johnson, C.W. and R.P. McArthur, 1973, Winter Storm and Flood Analysis, Northwest Interior, in Proceedings of the Hydraulic Division Specialty Conference, ASCE, Bozeman, Montana, August 15-17, pp. 359-369.

4-127

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Laird, W.E., 1997, Soil Survey Report of Baker County Area, Oregon. Natural Resource Conservation Service, US Dept. of Agriculture., http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html , accessed March 2012.

Miller, J.F, R. H. Frederick and R. J. Tracey, 1973, NOAA Atlas 2:Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States. Volume X – Oregon. US Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphereic Administation, National Weather Service. Silver Springs, MD. 1973. Perpared for US Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division.

NASA, 2012, Volcanoes – Climate Change, on Earth Observatory website. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/ accessed 6 May 2012 .

Nayak, A., D. Marks, D. G. Chandler, and M. Seyfried, 2010, Long-term snow, climate, and streamflow trends at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, Owyhee Mountains, Idaho, United States. Water Resources Research, No. 46, W06519,doi:10.1029/2008WR007525.

NRCS, 1997a, Schneider Meadows Oregon Snotel Site – 1997 Daily Data. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water and Climate Center. Portland, Oregon. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/data/snow/snotel/cards/oregon/17d08s_1997.tab , accessed 27 Apr 2011.

NRCS, 1997b, Mount Howard Oregon Snotel Site – 1997 Daily Data. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water and Climate Center. Portland, Oregon. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/data/snow/snotel/cards/oregon/17d18s_1997.tab , accessed 27 Apr 2011.

NRCS, 2012, Schneider Meadows Oregon Snotel Site – Data Summary. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water and Climate Center. Portland, Oregon, http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=736&state=or accessed 27 Apr 2011.

NOAA, 1974-1999, Climatological Data Annual Summary, Oregon. National Climate Data Center, Ashville, NC. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA, 1982, Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 States. NOAA Technical Report NWS 33. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Washington, D.C. June 1982. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/PMP_related_studies/TR33.pdf, accessed 30Apr2012.

NOAA, 1997a, Halfway, Oregon, Climate Records for 1997. Data provided by Joel Tannenholz, Boise Weather Forecast Office, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, Boise, Idaho.

4-128

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

NOAA, 1997b, Huntington, Oregon, Climate Records for 1997, Data provided by Joel Tannenholz, Boise Weather Forecast Office, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, Boise, Idaho.

O'Connor, J. E., 1993, Hydrology, hydraulics, and geomorphology of the Bonneville Flood: Geological Society of America Special Paper 274, 83 p. (also see O’Connor flood parameters at http://geology.mines.edu/faculty/Klee/Bonneville.pdf accessed 28 Feb 2012.

Portland State University, 2012, Glaciers of Oregon, in Glaciers of The American West website. Departments of Geology and Geography, Portland State University. http://glaciers.us/Glaciers- Oregon accessed 6 May 2012.

Powder Basin Watershed Council, 2000, Pine Creek Watershed Assessment, August 2000. Printed by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River Area Office, Boise, Idaho.

Reba, M.L., J. Pomeroy, D. Marks and T.E. Link, 2011, Estimating surface sublimation losses from snowpacks in a mountain catchment using eddy covariance and turbulent transfer calculations. Hydrologic Processes. Published online in Wiley Online Library Copywrite 2011, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rosgen, D.L. and Silvey, H.L., 1996, Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado: Wildland Hydrology Books.

Stearns, Harold T., 1962, Evidence of Lake Bonneville Flood along Snake River below King Hill, Idaho. Geological Society of American Bulletin 1962; 73;385-388. http://terra.rice.edu/department/faculty/morganj/ESCI536/Readings/Stearns-GSABull1962.pdf , accessed 28 Feb 2012.

OWRD, 2012a, Water Availability Basin (WAB) Boundaries. GIS map provided by Bob Harmon. http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gis/wr/Default.htm , accessed 22 Feb 2012.

OWRD, 2012b, Shape files of Water Availability Basin (WAB) Boundaries were provided by Bob Harmon, OWRD, on 24Feb2012.OWRD. 2012c. Watershed Characteristics for WABs. http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wars/wars_display_wa_tables/search_for_WAB.aspx , accessed 22 Feb 2012.

OWRD, 2012d, Water Availability Analysis for WABs. http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wars/wars_display_wa_tables/display_wa_complete_report.aspx ?ws_id=30920253&exlevel=80&scenario_id=1, accessed 22 Feb 2012.

4-129

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

OWRD, 2012e, Water Rights. http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr/wrinfo/ accessed 22 Feb 2012.

OWRD, 2012f, Point of Diversion Summary Report. http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr/wrinfo/wr_summary_pod.aspx accessed 9May2012.

Parry, W. , 2012, Volcanoes may have sparked Little Ice Age. Scientific American web article: 31 Jan 2012. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=volcanoes-may-have-sparked accessed 6 May 2012.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, et. al., 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, vol. 399, pp. 429-436. 3 June 1999.

Severinghaus, J. P. and E. J. Brook, 1999, Abrupt climate change at the end of the last glacial period inferred from trapped air in polar ice. Science 29Oct1999: Vol. 286 no. 5441 pp. 930-934.

Tzedakis, P.C., J.E.T. Channell, D.A.Hodell, H.F. Kleiven, & L.C. Skinner. 2012. Determining the natural length of the current interglacial. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5, pp. 138–141.

University of Idaho, 2012, Monthly Shallow Pond Evaporation in Idaho, web publication adapted from: Molnau, M., K.C.S. Kpordze and K.L. Craine. 1992. Monthly shallow pond evaporation in Idaho: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper PNW 92-111. http://snow.cals.uidaho.edu/publications/Pond_evap/Pond.html, accessed 30 Apr 2012.

USDA, 2012a, Online Map of Baker County Area, Oregon (OR604) Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx , accessed 05 Apr 2012

USDA, 2012b, Hydrologic Soil Group section of Water Features Report, Baker County Area, Oregon (OR604) Soil Survey. http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html, accessed 05 Apr 2012.

USDOT, 2012, Figure 3.7, terms used to define roads: cross-section, in Roadside Vegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Roadside Vegetation. Federal Highway Administration, US

4-130

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Department of Transportation, http://www.nativerevegetation.org/learn/manual/ch_3.aspx accessed 24 Apr 2012.

USEPA, 2012, Figure 1, National Hydrologic Unit Classification System. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html#fig_1 , accessed 05 May 2012.

USGS, 2002, Mount Mazama and Crater Lake: Growth and Destruction of a Cascade Volcano.

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 092-02, Online Version 1.0. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs092-02/ , accessed 6 May 2012.

USGS, 2012a, USGS Gage ID 3269000, Snake River at Weiser, Idaho. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=13269000&agency_cd=USGS, accessed 02 Mar 2012.

USGS, 2012b, USGS 13290450 Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam ID-OR State Line http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?13290450, Accessed 02Mar2012.

USGS, 2012c, USGS Gage ID 13290190 Pine Creek nr Oxbow OR http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&site_no=13290190, accessed 02 Mar 2012.

USGS, 2012d, Peak Streamflow Data for 5 Gages, Snake River at Weiser ID, accessed 02 Mar 2012 at the following web address: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=13269000&agency_cd=USGS&format=html

USGS, 2012e, USGS Gage ID 13269000, Snake River at Weiser, Idaho. Water year 2011 graph, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?cb_00010=on&cb_00060=on&format=gif_default&begin_dat e=2010-10-01&end_date=2011-09-30&site_no=13269000&referred_module=sw accessed 02 Mar 2012.

USGS, 2012f, USGS Gage ID 13290190, Pine Creek nr Oxbow, OR. Water year 1968 graph. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?cb_00060=on&format=gif_stats&begin_date=1967-10- 01&end_date=1968-09-30&site_no=13290190&referred_module=sw accessed 02 Mar 2012.

USGS Gage Data

Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam OR-ID, accessed 02 Mar 2012 at the following web address:

4-131

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=13290450&agency_cd=USGS&forma t=html

Pine Creek near Oxbow, OR, accessed 02 Mar 2012 at the following web address: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=13290190&agency_cd=USGS&forma t=html

Powder River near Robinette, OR, accessed 02 Mar 2012 at the following web address: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=13289500&agency_cd=USGS&forma t=html

Burnt River at Huntington, OR, accessed 02 Mar 2012 at the following web address: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=13275000&agency_cd=USGS&forma t=html

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN), 1999, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Prepared for the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon. http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/docs/pubs/or_wsassess_manuals.aspx

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN), 1999b, Appendix A – Ecoregion Descriptions, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Prepared for the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon, http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/wa_manual99/apdx1- ecoregions.pdf

Wellman, R.E., Gordon, J.M. and Moffatt, R.L., 1993, Statistical Summaries of Streamflow Data in Oregon: Volume 2- Annual Low Flow and High Flow and Instantaneous Peak Flow . U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-63. Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon Water Resources Department. Portland, Oregon. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1993/0063/report.pdf accessed 6 Mar 2012.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2005, Evaporation Stations. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westevap.final.html, accessed 30 Apr 2012.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2012a, Climate Summaries for Brownlee Dam, Cornucopia, Halfway and Huntington, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmor.html, > Accessed 30 Apr 2012.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2012b, Morgan Mountain Oregon RAWS page, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?orOMOR, accessed 30 Apr 2012.

4-132

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 5 Riparian and Wetlands

Introduction

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate current riparian vegetation along stream channels in the study area for their ability to provide large woody debris and shade to the stream. This information can be used to prioritize areas for stream restoration. Large woody debris (large tree trunks, stumps or branches) are an important structural element for fish habitat because they slow runoff, divert flows and increase channel complexity. Large wood provides pools and gravel areas for fish spawning, resting and feeding. Riparian vegetation stabilizes creek banks, provides litter that attracts insects for fish food, and shades the creek to lower stream temperatures.

The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN 1999) identifies the following critical questions regarding the riparian assessment.

1. What are the current conditions of riparian areas in the watershed?

2. How do the current conditions compare to those potentially present or typically present for the ecoregion?

3. How can the current riparian areas be grouped within the watershed to increase our understanding of what areas need protection and what the appropriate restoration/enhancement opportunities might be?

Ecoregions developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency are defined as areas of relative homogeneity in ecological systems and their components. Factors associated with spatial differences in the quality and quantity of ecosystem components, including soils, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography, are relatively homogeneous within an ecoregion. They have proven to be an effective aid for inventorying and assessing national and regional environmental resources, for setting regional resource management goals, and for developing biological criteria and water quality standard.

Materials and Methods

Table 5-1 Summary of the map layers used to determine the riparian areas and wetland areas. Name Source Publication Date Level IV U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Ecoregion http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/or_eco.htm Map of

5-133

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 5-1 Summary of the map layers used to determine the riparian areas and wetland areas. Name Source Publication Date Oregon Stream Size, Oregon Department of Forestry 2011 and Flow http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/fishpresence.shtml Duration

National United States Geological Survey 2011 Hydrologic http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Data Set (Stream network) National U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory 2012 Wetland http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/State-Downloads.html Inventory Soil data National Resource Conservation Service and hydric http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html soils list

The Manual steps guided the assessment of the existing riparian conditions of the Brownlee Subbasin. For this assessment, the analyst gathered the following materials.

 ODF base maps

 Channel Habitat Type (CHT) map and aerial photographs

 EPA Level IV Ecoregion map with descriptions of ecoregions in the study area

 USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map

 NRCS soil data

The riparian zones were analyzed using ArcGIS to map the percent shade within a 100-foot zone on either side of streams. Where more than 70% of the stream was covered, the shade was labeled high, medium was 40% to 70% stream cover and less than 40% was considered low shade. The base map layers used to develop the riparian shade map were the CHT layer and aerial photography. The amount of the stream visible in the photo was used to determine the amount of shade. Where possible, field verification was carried out to confirm the photo assessment. The type of vegetation was determined from the Ecoregion map and descriptions, as well as field verification.

5-134

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The shaded areas are shown on map 5.1. Areas with high shade (>70%) account for 7.5% of the stream length, while 19.6% have medium shade (40-70%) and the remaining 72.9% has low shade (<40%).

The type and density of the vegetation found along the stream were used in this component to determine the potential for LWD recruitment. Areas that had dense cover of large trees are most likely to provide LWD. Those areas that had sparse cover or small trees or brush were determined to have low LWD potential areas.

Discussion

Historical Changes in Vegetation

Historically, vegetation was predominantly comprised of 63% dry brush (sagebrush and other desert shrubs) and grasses (Idaho fescue and blue bunch wheat grass) at lower elevations and 29% forest at higher elevations. Roughly 6% of the subbasin consisted of riparian hardwoods, open meadows, and water, and 2% of other communities (derived from pre-settlement or older than 1938) vegetation data (Tobalske 2002).

Most of the forested area, about 75,500 acres of National Forest System land, is located in the Pine Creek Watershed. Table 5-2 shows that the most significant changes have been: a decrease in single-story stands of large trees and an increase of multi-storied stands. This probably reflects cutting of lower-elevation large ponderosa pine and suppression of fire. The Pine Creek watershed analysis (PCWA 1998) also included important riparian trees, quaking aspen and black cottonwood in the analysis. They estimated that the watershed had 500 to 2,000 acres of aspen and cottonwood galleries. There is little data on the current extent or condition of these galleries, though they are in decline. Table 5-2 Biophysical Environments (PCWA 1998). Structural Stage Historic Condition Range (ac) Average (ac) Existing (ac) Difference (ac) Stand Initiation 755-9,816 6,045 10,222 4,177 Stem Exclusion - Open Canopy 2,268-9,073 4,538 1,125 -3,314 Stem Exclusion - Closed 1,480-10,262 4,765 2,535 -2,230 Canopy Understory Reinitiation 1,963-12,061 7,384 16,297 8,913 Multistratum - Large Trees 6,170-20,563 12,634 22,315 9,681 Common Single Stratum - Large Trees 6,978-26,674 18,761 2,305 -16,456 Common

5-135

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

According to the subbasin analysis conducted in 2004 (Nowak 2004), sagebrush shrub steppe and salt-desert shrub currently comprise approximately 40% of the subbasin, with grasslands and agricultural fields comprising 23% and 14% of the subbasin area, respectively. Forested areas occur within 13% of the subbasin, with the remainder of the vegetation (10%) consisting of riparian habitat, wetlands, alpine tundra and other shrub communities such as mountain mahogany. A detailed field survey of the area within 0.5 miles of the Hell’s Canyon Dam complex (including the Powder River arm which is not in the Brownlee subbasin study area) identified riparian and wetland communities occurring within 1.95% of the study area, and an additional 1.82% consisting of reservoir shoreline and bottomland communities specifically associated with reservoir operations (Idaho Power 2003).

By 1938, vegetation had been altered from historic conditions by very heavy grazing in the late 1800's and early 1900's combined with some drought conditions, and earlier and ongoing mining (BLM 2011). These early changes are difficult to quantify, but the BLM estimated that historic grazing, prior to the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, was responsible for up to 7% conversion of native communities to dominance by non-native species within the Brownlee subbasin and adjacent areas.

The amount of open water in the assessment area increased with the construction of the large hydroelectric dams on the Snake River: the Hells Canyon Dam, the Oxbow Dam, and the Brownlee Dam. In addition to increasing open water, the reservoirs submerged herbaceous wetland, riparian shrub and hardwood/forested communities. Idaho Power (2003) estimated that 5,820 acres in the Brownlee Reservoir fluctuation zone have been inundated including an estimated 372 acres of riparian habitat. Within the narrower canyons between the Hells Canyon Dam and the Brownlee Dam, Idaho Power estimated that the Oxbow Reservoir operations inundated 7 acres of riparian and 82 acres of upland habitats, and that the Hells Canyon Reservoir operations inundated 9 acres of riparian and 231 acres of upland habitats. Overall, the total extent of potential riparian habitat loss due to the Hells Canyon Complex operation was estimated at 388 acres, with the majority of the impact along Brownlee Reservoir due to large seasonal water-level fluctuations.

Changes in some riparian habitats in the subbasin have been studied more than others. Aspen is a species that occurs in riparian areas, seeps or other moist soil areas. Aspen stands have declined substantially within the subbasin as a result of fire suppression, competition with conifers and browsing by both livestock and wildlife (Nowak 2004). Mapping of aspen stands within the portion of the Pine Creek watershed managed by the USFS indicates that although the number of stands has not recently decreased, the stand sizes are continuing to decrease to less than one acre in size and the condition characterized by older, dying trees without any regeneration (PCWA 1998). Idaho Power (2003) examined aspen stands within 0.5 miles of the Hells Canyon

5-136

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Complex shoreline. They identified that the herbaceous layer in the stands is dominated by noxious weeds and non-native species such as cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), medusa head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and hound’s tongue (Cynoglossum officinale) indicating fairly disturbed conditions.

Cottonwoods represent an important riparian hardwood species. They occur along streams as they require a relatively high water table and frequent alluvial disturbance for regeneration. Cottonwoods currently are located along Clear Creek, Pine Creek, North Pine Creek, East Pine Creek, Duck Creek, Little Elk Creek, Fish Creek and Lake Fork Creek (PCWA 1998) although their distribution is patchy and their condition of older trees without any regeneration indicates that they are in decline (Pine Creek 2000). The FS has generally recommended a program of removing roads within unconstrained riparian floodplains within appropriate ecoregions to allow cottonwood regeneration, fencing of riparian areas and removal of conifers within cottonwood and aspen stands. Map 5.1 shows the Level 4 Eco Regions within the study area.

The aerial photographs, ecoregion table (Table 5-3 Level IV Ecoregions in the Brownlee Subbasin) and field observations were used to determine vegetation in the watersheds.

5-137

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 5-3 Level IV Ecoregions in the Brownlee Subbasin (EPA 2012).

Level IV Acres Physiography Potential Vegetation Common Riparian Species Ecoregion 11d 10,718 Mid-elevation Western ponderosa pine forest, juniper steppe Sitka alder, mountain Melange mountains. Few woodland/ Juniper, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, alder, willows, common perennial streams. subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, western larch, grand snowberry, cottonwood fir, grouse huckleberry, snowberry, prince’s pine, near stream, Douglas-fir, sidebells pyrola, twinflower, pinegrass, elk sedge, true firs and ponderosa and heartleaf arnica. Riparian areas: mountain pine adjacent, some alder, red-twig dogwood, prickly currant, black reaches with beaked currant, Columbia monk’s hood, bluebells. sedge, aquatic sedge or bluejoint reedgrass 11e 36,956 Deeply dissected mid- Western ponderosa pine forest and grand fir– Subalpine fir, willows, Wallowas elevation mountains. Douglas-fir forest/ Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, mountain alder, Sitka /Seven Perennial streams fed by grand fir, western larch, ninebark, snowberry, alder, bog blueberry, Devils snow melt. Rocky Mountain maple, serviceberry, mountain common snowberry, Mountains big sagebrush, big huckleberry, grouse ladyfern, arrowleaf huckleberry, twinflower, prince’s pine, elk sedge, groundsel, and numerous and pinegrass. sedges. 11f 31,730 Steeply sloping, upper Grand fir–Douglas-fir forest and western ponderosa Willows, dogwood: in Canyons and canyons and dissected pine forest/ Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch, unconstrained reaches also Dissected plateaus. ponderosa pine, ninebark, snowberry, oceanspray, cottonwood, tufted Highlands heartleaf arnica, elk sedge. Riparian areas: hairgrass or aquatic sedge. mountain alder, stinking and prickly currant, thimbleberry, Columbia monk’s hood.

5-138

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 5-3 Level IV Ecoregions in the Brownlee Subbasin (EPA 2012).

Level IV Acres Physiography Potential Vegetation Common Riparian Species Ecoregion 11g 36,785 Deep, river canyons and Wheatgrass–bluegrass/ Lower north-facing slopes Willows, dogwood: in Canyons and dissected plateaus. and upper south-facing slopes: Douglas-fir, unconstrained reaches also Dissected ponderosa pine, and Idaho fescue. Lower south- cottonwood, tufted Uplands facing slopes: bluebunch wheatgrass and arrowleaf hairgrass or aquatic sedge. balsamroot. Upper north-facing slopes: grand fir, ninebark, and pinegrass. Riparian areas: Snake River (Hells Canyon) hackberry, bluebunch wheatgrass. Overgrazed areas dominated by cheatgrass. Exotic annuals. Tributary Canyons– mock-orange, poison ivy, red-twig dogwood, snowberry, Rocky Mountain maple. 11i 164,064 Foothills, hills, and Mostly sagebrush steppe/ Bluebunch wheatgrass, Willows, shrubby Continental scattered buttes. A few mountain big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, Wyoming cinquefoil, Cusick’s Zone perennial streams occur big sagebrush, Sandberg bluegrass, and, on schist, bluegrass, woody sedge in Foothills and originate in the Nevada greasebush. some unconstrained surrounding mountain reaches. ranges. 11l Mesic 33,299 Dissected, volcanic Grand fir–Douglas-fir forest/ Cold slopes: Willows, bog blueberry, Forest Zone plateau and mid- Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, mountain dogwood, mountain alder, elevation mountains. hemlock, lodgepole pine, big huckleberry, grouse Pacific ninebark, common Intermittent headwater huckleberry, Utah honeysuckle, sidebells pyrola, snowberry, bordered by streams or larger roundleaved violet, and northwestern sedge. Cool Engelmann spruce, perennial streams fed by moist slopes: grand fir, western larch, queen’s cup Douglas fir, true fir, and snow melt from beadlily, and prince’s pine. Drier slopes: Douglas- lodgepole pine. adjacent high fir,ponderosa pine, mountain maple, ninebark, mountains. pinegrass, elk sedge, and bigleaf sandwort.

5-139

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 5-3 Level IV Ecoregions in the Brownlee Subbasin (EPA 2012).

Level IV Acres Physiography Potential Vegetation Common Riparian Species Ecoregion 11m 19,206 High elevation, Western spruce–fir forest; alpine meadows– Subalpine fir, willows, Subalpine- glaciated mountains barren/ Subalpine fir, whitebark pine, Engelmann mountain alder, Sitka Alpine Zone with aretes, cirques, spruce, and lodgepole pine. Dry south-facing alder, bog bluebeny, mountain slopes, tarns, slopes: mountain big sagebrush and Idaho fescue. common snowberry, permanent snowfields, Wet meadows: heather and Parry’s rush. Treeline: ladyfern, arrowleaf and a remnant glacier. krummholz. Alpine meadows of green fescue and groundsel, and numerous High gradient streams Hood’s sedge. Highest: rock outcrops, rubble sedges. with boulder and cobble land, and snowfields. substrates. 12j 36,832 Rolling foothills, hills, Mostly sagebrush steppe/ Wyoming big Black and narrow-leaved Unwooded benches, alluvial fans, sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg cottonwoods, willows, Alkaline and scattered badlands. bluegrass, Thurber needlegrass, Indian ricegrass, mountian alder, hawthorn, Foothills Few perennial streams. and cheatgrass. Saline-alkaline areas: black chokecherry, wood's rose, greasewood, shadscale, fourwing saltbush, and and silver sage. inland saltgrass.

5-140

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The vegetation in southern portions of the study area (Birch Creek, Benson Creek and Love Reservoir Creek) and in the Brownlee Reservoir area, which includes Tarter Gulch, Canyon Creek and Quicksand Creek are in the Continental Zone Foothills and Unwooded Alkaline Foothills Eco Regions. The riparian vegetation includes Populus trichocarpa (Black cottonwood), Pinus ponderosae (Ponderosa pine) Populus tremuloides (Aspen), Salix amygdaloides (Peachleaf willow), Salix exigua (Coyote willow), Artemisia tridentate (sagebrush), Cercocarpus ledifolius (Curleaf mountain mahogany), Rosa woodsii (Wood’s rose), Ribes aureum (Golden current), and Poa cusickii (Cusick’s bluegrass).

Photo 5-1 Morgan Creek with grazing with no understory vegetation. This photo illustrates the Continental zone foothills and melange ecoregions.

5-141

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 5-2 The photo on the left is looking upstream at Morgan Creek. The stream is fenced and has a dense native vegetation cover. The photo on the right is looking downstream from the same point. This portion of the stream is not fenced. Riparian vegetation is sparse and gully formation is occurring.

In the central section of the study area (Morgan Creek, Ryan Gulch, Cox Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and Conner Creek), these Melange and Continental zone foothills Ecoregions consists of Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), Pinus ponderosae (Ponderosa pine), and Pinus contorta (Lodgepole pine), with Abies lasiocarpa (Subalpine fir), Larix occidentalis (Western larch), and Abies grandis (Grand fir), Cercocarpus ledifolius (Mountain-mahogany), Symphoricarpos albus (Common snowberry), Amelanchier arborea (serviceberry), Vaccinium scoparium (Grouse huckleberry), Calamagrostis rubescens (pinegrass), Arex garberi (Elk sedge), Festuca idahoensis (Idaho fescue), and Pseudoroegneria spicata (Bluebunch wheatgrass). The riparian areas consist of Alnus viridis (Mountain alder), Cornus sericea (Red-twig dogwood), Ribes lacustre (Pickly currant), Ribes montigenum (Gooseberry), and Hyacinthoides non-scripta (Bluebells). (See Photo 5.1)

Photo 5-2 left is showing the native vegetation buffer along Morgan Creek that is flourishing, in part because of fencing. The photo 5-2 right is a native vegetation stand that has been impacted by grazing.

The northern portion of the study area is made up of several ecoregions and therefore has a more diverse vegetation community. The southern section of the northern study area (Sag Creek, Deer

5-142

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Creek, Fish Creek and Elk Creek vicinity) is also in the Continental Zone Foothill, which consists of Populus tremuloides (Aspen), Salix amygdaloides (Peachleaf willow), Salix exigua (Coyote willow), Artemisia tridentate (Sagebrush) and other shrubs and sedges. Habitat surveys have been completed by the USFS and provide detailed information about vegetation and in- channel and riparian habitats. In the well-documented Elk Creek survey, vegetation in addition to the species represented in the ecoregions included Abies concolor (White fir), Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir), and Alnus rubra (Red alder). This would suggest that the vegetation listed in the ecoregion table is a summary and that other native species can be found in the regions.

Downstream of Oxbow Dam, the Snake River tributaries (including Hunsaker Creek, Hunter Creek, Homestead Creek, Nelson Creek and Steamboat Creek) are located in the Canyons and Dissected Uplands Ecoregion. The upland plant community in the ecoregion includes Abies concolor (White fir), Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir), Lodgepole pine, Alnus viridis (Mountain alder), Salix spp. (willow) and grassland/forbes. Crataegus douglasii (Douglas hawthorn), Salix spp. (willow) and Rosa woodsii (Wood’s rose) are found in unconstrained reaches both bordered by conifers.

The Canyons and Dissected Highlands Ecoregion (including McGraw Creek and North Pine Creek and its tributaries) is located in the northern-most area of the study area,. The vegetation is old growth riparian with old and new vegetation in various stages of development. Photo 5.3 shows the vegetation community along Pine Creek and the benefits of fencing the riparian corridor.

The overstory vegetation is comprised of Abies grandis (Grand fir), Larix occidentalis (Western larch), Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce), Pinus ponderosae (Ponderosa pine), Cercocarpus ledifolius (Curleaf mountain mahogany), Populus tremuloides (Aspen) and Populus trichocarpa (Black cottonwood). Understory vegetation includes Prunus virginiana (Chokecherry), Acer circinatum (Vine maple), Amelanchier arborea (Serviceberry), Symphoricarpos albus (Common snowberry), Ribes aureum (Golden currants), Cornus sericea (Red-twig dogwood), Athyrium otophorum (Lady fern), Urtica dioica (Nettle), Balsamorhiza sagittata (Arrowleaf), Lupinus species (Lupine), Veratrum viride (False hellebore) and Epilobium angustifolium (Fireweed). Riparian forbes and Carex (Sedges) are plentiful.

5-143

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Photo 5-3 Pine Creek with fencing on one bank that is vegetated and no fencing on the other bank.

Duck Creek, Elk Creek and its tributaries and Fish Creek are in the Mesic Forest region, and the riparian vegetation overstory is comprised of Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce), Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir) and Pinus contorta (Lodgepole pine) at the borders. The understory is comprised of Alnus viridis ssp. Crispa (Mountain alder), Salix exigua (Coyote willow, Vaccinium uliginosum (Bog blueberry) and Physocarpus capitatus (Pacific ninebark).

In addition, Abies lasiocarpa (Subalpine fir), Vaccinium uliginosum (Bog blueberry) and Symphoricarpos alba (Common snowberry) and herbacious species including Athyrium otophorum (Ladyfern) and Carex species (Sedges) are found in the Middle, West and East forks of Pine Creek and Norway Creek, as well as Fuller Creek, and East Pine Creek main stem near Halfway.

Non-native plant populations continue to increase in the subbasin, and are displacing native plants and degrading natural areas, potentially destabilizing streams, reducing the quality of fish and wildlife habitat, impacting agriculture and native plant communities. Heavy grazing coupled with stream side vegetation removal has also caused a shift in the native riparian stands in the

5-144

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

low lands of Pine Valley. The removal of over story alder and cottonwood and subsequent lack of regeneration of those species has led to homogenous stands of shade intolerant hawthorn.

Problem areas in the Brownlee subbasin include the creeks with less than 40% shade. These riparian areas are susceptible to nonnative plant invasion, particularly when cattle are present, as the cattle trample the natives providing an opportunity for nonnatives to establish in the wet, compacted soils.

In the arid areas, Poa bulbosa (bulbous blue grass) is of concern and Rubus discolor (Himalayan blackberry) is of concern in the Snake River Canyon (Tim Bliss, personal communication).

The Baker County noxious weed plan identifies leafy spurge as a weed that is to be treated with early detection of new infestations in Pine Valley with grazing, biological and chemical control. An important project is the comprehensive survey and mapping of the areas known to contain spurge. Mediterranean sage is occurring on limited acreage in Pine Creek and North Pine Creek on the Wallowa Loop Road out of Halfway and should be targeted for an active eradication program. The Baker County noxious weed plan also identifies Knapweed, Dalmation toadflax and yellow star thistle as serious threats to target for control. Table 5-4 is a list of the Baker County Noxious Weeds.

Table 5-4 The 2011 Baker County noxious weeds and "watch list". Common Name Scientific Name “Watch List"- Few known sites; controlled by weed supervisor county-wide 1. Musk Thistle Carduus nutans 2. Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis 3. Dyers Woad Istasis tinctoria 4. Common bugloss Anchusa officinalis "A" Designated Weeds - mandatory control county-wide 1. Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea 2. Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 3. Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea 4. Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa 5. Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 6. Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica 7. Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis 8. Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium 9. Purple loosestrife Lyrum salicaria 10. Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger 11. Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica

5-145

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 5-4 The 2011 Baker County noxious weeds and "watch list". Common Name Scientific Name 12. Buffalobur Solanum rostratum 13. Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum 14. Scotch Thistle Onopordum acanthium 15. Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus 16. Salt Cedar Tamarix ramosissima 17. Whitetop Lepidium draba “B” Designated weeds – widespread and or high concern 1. Whitetop Lepidium draba 2. Russian knapweed Centaurea repens 3. Canada thistle Cirsium vulgare 4. Venice mallow Hibiscus trionum 5. Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris 6. Dodder Cuscuta campestris 7. Chickory Cichorium intybus 8. Teasel Dipsacus fullonum 9. Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare 10. Klamathweed Hypericum perforatum 11. Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris 12. Myrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites 13. Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta "C" Designated Weeds - Widespread and/or of Moderate Concern 1. Poison hemlock Conium maculatum 2. Morningglory Convolvulus arvensis 3. Russian thistle Salsola iberica 4. Medusahead wildrye Taeniatherum caput- medusae 5. Kochia Kochia scoparia 6. Common mullein Verbascum thapsis 7. Moth mullein Verbascum blattaria 8. Bur buttercup Ranunculus testiculatus 9. Water hemlock Cicuta douglasii

Suggested non-native plant treatment methods include herbicide applications along roadsides, and spot and selective herbicide treatments that target individual invasive plants in combination with manual, mechanical and cultural treatments, including biological control. Planting and seeding native plants in the areas where non-native plants have been treated will create

5-146

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment competition of the natives to reduce the non-native plant populations. See the Baker County weed plan (http://www.bakercounty.org/weed/Weeds.html).

Other Available Data

Demeter Design conducted riparian habitat surveys for Pine and Birch Creeks. In addition, River Design Group (2012) prepared a report on Pine Creek which identified areas to improve habitat for fish and other species. This work can be used to identify restoration opportunities in the Birch Creek and Pine Creek watersheds. The habitat survey and restoration report are available at the Powder Basin Watershed Council office in Baker City.

Copies of the Forest Service riparian data collected in the 1990’s is available at the Powder Basin Watershed Council office. The information includes survey data for Aspen Creek, Beecher Creek, Big Elk Creek, Cabin Creek, Clarks Creek, East Fork Pine Creek, East Pine Creek, Elk Creek, Lake Fork Creek, Okanagon Creek, Pack Saddle Creek and Pine Creek. The Elk Creek 2011 survey report is excellent.

Results

Vegetation Overview and Potential Riparian Vegetation

There are nine Level IV Ecoregions within the Brownlee subbasin (map 5.1) each containing different potential riparian vegetation types (table 5-2). At higher elevations, generally above 4,000 to 5,000 feet, conifers are important streamside components, along with a mix of hardwoods and shrubs such as Willow, Vaccinium uliginosum (bog blueberry), red-osier dogwood, mountain alder, Pacific ninebark, and common snowberry. Herbaceous wetlands are also natural riparian vegetation components. Conifers generally occur naturally adjacent to the stream (within 30 feet of the channel) or bordering it (within 100 feet).

The natural vegetation within mid-elevation areas is dominated by shrub steppe communities within mid and southern portions of the subbasin (EPA Level IV Continental Zone Foothills ecoregion) and a mix of forests and grasslands in the northern portion within the HUC 5 Indian Creek watershed (EPA Level IV Canyons and Dissected uplands ecoregion). Conifers are not naturally important streamside components in either ecoregion. Natural riparian vegetation is dominated by willows, shrubby cinquefoil, Cusick’s bluegrass and aspen in the Continental Foothills, and by willows, red-osier dogwood, black cottonwood and herbaceous wetland species in the Canyons and Dissected uplands.

Melange represents a unique ecoregion type as it occurs within mid to high elevations with a complex geology that includes high proportions of gold and magnesium deposits. Placer mining

5-147

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment is common in this ecoregion. Riparian vegetation consists of a mix of hardwoods and shrubs near the stream such as alders, willows and cottonwoods, bordered by conifers.

At low elevations in the southeastern portion of the subbasin, another set of shrub steppe communities occur within the EPA Level IV Unwooded Alkaline Foothill ecoregion. Conifers never occurred in this ecoregion. Natural riparian vegetation includes black and narrow-leaved cottonwoods, willows, mountain alder, black hawthorn, chokecherry, wood’s rose, and silver sage.

Specific potential vegetation within these areas varies according to aspect, slope, degree of channel constraint, and other factors (see Crowe et al. 2004). Franklin and Dryness mapped two broad vegetation areas in the Blue Mountain province (which includes the Brownlee Reservoir subbasin), Grand fir and Douglas fir forested zones and a steppe and shrub steppe zone. The fires return interval for ponderosa pine, lodge pole pine and western larch in the Douglas fir zone is shorter than the grand fir zone. The steppe zone has nine associations or plant communities that can occur depending on the amount of moisture and soil type. Sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) dominates almost every community in the shrub steppe. One exception is the dominance of bitterbrush on some sites in the Pine Creek watershed and the Snake River Canyon.

Two associations that are common along streams in the Brownlee Reservoir subbasin is Douglas hawthorn with either snowberry or cow parsnip. The Douglas hawthorn/snowberry association occurs along moist draws (such as side streams in the Snake River canyon) and includes many herbs such as iris and geranium and other shrubs such as wild cherry and serviceberry. The Douglas hawthorn/cow parsnip association is found on aggraded valley floors (like Pine Valley) and includes wooly britches and stinging nettles. There are also quaking aspen phases of these associations in which aspen and hawthorn alternate; aspen growing through the hawthorn canopy and shading it out. The short-lived aspen dies and releases the hawthorn. In some drier areas a Black cottonwood/water hemlock association replaces the hawthorn/cow parsnip type. Another riparian type is White alder (sometimes with Black cottonwood). These riparian associations have been profoundly affected by human activities. Little remains of these forest types (Franklin and Dryness 1988).

Conclusions

The first critical question asks about the current conditions of the riparian areas in the watershed. Much of the terrain in the Brownlee Subbasin is very steep; this is reflected in the dominance of CHTs with very steep headwaters (VH) and steep valleys (SV), which comprise 76% of the mapped stream network. These two CHTs are particularly dominant in the HUC 6 subwatersheds that line the Snake River Canyon. They provide limited opportunities for restoration due to the steep gradient and channel confinement.

5-148

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

At the south end of the study area, Birch Creek and Benson Creek have low gradient CHTs that are responsive to change and are suitable for restoration and enhancement.

There is an opportunity to plant trees closer to the creeks that would provide shade and provide stream bank stability. In other areas of the subbasin with low shade (see map 5.1), planting trees and shrubs, and incorporating LWD along the creek banks would improve water quality and lower water temperatures, and provide an opportunity for native plants to naturalize. Low shade in the VH and the other arid regions is probably the natural condition, but worth further investigation for restoration opportunities.

The second critical question asks how current conditions compare to those potentially present or typically present for the ecoregion. The current conditions in the northern section of the study area (Pine Creek) are typical of the Subalpine-alpine zone, the Mesic forest zone, the Canyons and dissected highlands, and the Wallowas/Seven Devils mountains ecoregions with the native vegetation present. Invasive non-native plants, potential erosion and rock-mining degradation should be monitored and controlled. The stream channel is overly widened in East Pine Creek, and it is difficult to tell if it is caused by trampling by livestock (USFS Pine Creek Surveys 1998). With the regeneration of cottonwood and willow in areas where the livestock has moved out, this could be the case.

The mid-section of the study area (Fox Creek) is currently represented with native plants from the Continental Zone Foothills Ecoregion, with pressure from grazing and non-native plant invasion.

In the southern study area (Birch Creek) the Continental Zone Foothills and the Unwooded alkaline foothills ecoregions have minimal vegetation. Revegetation efforts are challenging with the high desert dry conditions, landslides, gullying, and cattle grazing.

The third critical question asks how current riparian areas can be grouped within the watershed to increase our understanding of what areas need protection and what the appropriate restoration/enhancement opportunities might be. Pine Valley is an important area for fisheries and other aquatic resources. Restoration projects to provide shade, improve habitat, control sediment and prevent erosion would be beneficial.

5-149

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The addition of wood to the confined channels in the Pine Creek and southern (Birch Creek) study area will provide fish habitat. Planting a riparian buffer and installing creek bank stabilization techniques in areas of low shade will provide shade, reduce erosion, enable plant recruitment and provide organic material and wood recruitment. The recruitment opportunity and shade availability are closely related, so reaches of streams with inadequate recruitment potential also have low shade availability. Planting a riparian buffer and installing creek bank stabilization techniques will provide shade, bank stabilization and provide organic material and wood recruitment. The areas with the most potential for planting are those with low shade.

Wetlands

The Manual provides the following critical questions regarding wetlands in the assessment area.

1. Where are the wetlands in this watershed?

 Wetland locations will be identified and mapped using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, aerial photos, and other resources.

2. What are the general characteristics of wetlands within the watershed?

 The characteristics or attributes of known wetlands will be documented.

3. What opportunities exist to restore wetlands in the watershed?

 Restoration opportunities that are obvious from aerial interpretation, such as presence of fill, clearing, grazing, or ditching in wetlands, are identified in the wetland characterization, which results in a list of possible restoration sites.

Purpose

The purpose of the wetland characterization is to gain specific information on the location and attributes of wetlands in the watersheds, including size, habitat type, surrounding land use, connectivity, and opportunities for restoration. This method will help the watershed council determine whether it is appropriate or necessary to collect additional data on wetland function.

A wetland is delineated by the soil type and plant species that exist in the area as well as by the typical duration of the high water table and/or saturated soil during the growing season. The soil in a wetland is termed hydric. This is a soil that shows the characteristics of being in anaerobic conditions (lacking oxygen). The deposition of organic matter and standing water contribute to the making of a hydric soil. Some plant species are adapted to living in wet conditions: cattails,

5-150

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment rushes and willows. To be classified as a wetland, an area must have all three criteria: hydric soils, wetlands plants and saturated conditions for a part of the growing season.

Wetlands play a number of roles in the environment, principally water purification, flood control, and river bank stability. Wetlands are biologically diverse and provide habitat and shelter to a wide range of plants and animal life. Wetlands provide a means of storing, filtering, and slowing water movement during high flow events, and may provide habitat for fish or other aquatic life. Wetlands also provide a means of recharging the groundwater table, thereby providing base flow to streams and extending the duration of flow.

Methods

The wetland data were obtained from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps and the existing streams data layers. The NWI maps show the location, size, and habitat type of wetlands. The wetlands are summarized by HUC 6 in table A5.1, appendix 5.

The wetlands and hydric soils map (map 5.2) shows the location of hydric soils in the study areas. The map also shows the location and size of the following habitat types: freshwater emergent wetland, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, freshwater pond and riverine.

Aerial photographs were used to view the project area and look at the connectivity of wetlands to streams, determine vegetation types, surrounding land uses and disturbances. USGS topographic maps were used to identify other types of wetlands, including freshwater emergent wetland, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, freshwater pond, lake, riverine and stream. Hydric soils were identified on the NRCS soil survey maps.

Discussion

There are 5,586 acres of wetlands in the study area. Of these, 2,602 acres are mapped as freshwater emergent wetland, 1,368 acres are freshwater forested/shrub wetland, 146 acres are freshwater ponds, 384 acres are lakes and 1,086 acres are mapped as riverine. Some wetlands are excavated farm ponds, sediment basins, and irrigation water storage areas.

There are some wetlands located along the Snake River and at the mouths of streams. However, most of the wetlands are in the Pine Creek watersheds.

Pine Valley has numerous wetlands mapped on the NWI and the hydric soils map shows wetland in this area. Although most of this area is private land, there may be some restoration opportunities and educational opportunities explaining wetland function and protection.

5-151

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

In the southern arid portion of the study area (Birch and Benson Creeks), the wetlands are impacted by grazing, landslides and invasive plant species. Control of invasive plant species and best management livestock grazing practices would benefit the wetland water quality and provide opportunity for native plant restoration. Planting, seeding, and installation of soil bioengineering and gully restoration techniques would help to stabilize the upland slopes and reduce sediment in wetlands and loss of wetlands.

Data Gaps

 Non-native invasive species grow on limited acreage in Pine Valley. Field visits could target these areas for eradication.  Historical data on riparian habitat in very steep headwater streams in the more arid portion of the assessment could naturally be limited and further investigation is needed.  Further investigation along with landowner collaboration is needed to understand the feasibility of conducting restoration efforts in wetlands.

References

Baker County, 2002, Weed Plan, available online: http://www.bakercounty.org/weed/Weeds.html

Baker County, 2011, Noxious Weed List, available online: http://www.bakercounty.org/weed/BCNoxiousweeds.html

Bliss, Tim, 2012, personal communication.

Bureau of Land Management, 2011, Baker Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Volume 1, Chapters 1, 2, and 3.

Franklin and Dryness, 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, Jerry F. Franklin and C.T. Dryness, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

Idaho Power, 2003, New License Application Hells Canyon FERC Project No. 1971, available online: http://www.idahopower.com/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Relicensing/hellscanyon/HCapplication. cfm.

Nowak, M. Cathy, 2004 draft, Oregon Side of the Lower Middle Snake Subbasin Plan, prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Plan.

5-152

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Oregon Department of Forestry, 2012, Fish Presence and Stream Size Data, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/gis_home.shtml

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 2004, Riparian and Wetland Vegetation of Central and Eastern Oregon, available online: http://cms.oregon.gov/OWEB/Pages/publications.aspx

Pine Creek Assessment, 2000. Powder Basin Watershed Council, Baker City, OR

Pine Creek Watershed Analysis (PCWA), 1998. USDA Forest Service, Wallowa Whitman National Forest, Baker City, OR

River Design Group, 2012, Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report, prepared for the Powder Basin Watershed Council.

Tobalske, C., 2002, Historic Vegetation, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 1:100,000. Shapefile: 60 MB, available online: http://www.pdx.edu/pnwlamp/historical-vegetation-maps- for-pacific-northwest

WPN, 1999, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board.

U.S. Forest Service, stream habitat surveys, available at the PBWC office in Baker City.

5-153

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 6 Sediment Sources Assessment

Introduction

The purpose of the sediment section is to identify and map areas where erosion and movement of sediment into streams is occurring or is likely to occur. In the Brownlee watershed these areas include high-risk sections of roads, undersized culverts, landslides, burn areas, grazed lands, and land disturbance associated with mining.

The critical questions identified in the Manual are:

1. What are important sediment sources in the watershed?

2. What are important future sources of sediment in the watershed?

3. Where are erosion problems most severe and qualify as high priority for remedying conditions in the watershed?

Materials and Methods

Table 6-1 adapted from the Manual identifies current and potential sediment sources in the Brownlee subbasin. The PBWC assigned priorities to these sediment sources based on observed and potential stream impacts. These impacts include those caused by human intervention such as road construction, land disturbance associated with mining, and grazing; and those that may or may not be related to human intervention such as landslides and fire. The PBWC assigned low priority to Urban Runoff and Surface Erosion from Cropland simply because there is little of either in the watershed. The only urban area in the assessment area, the city Halfway, covers less than 0.2 square miles. There is little cropland in the watershed.

The GIS data bases used to prepare the base maps are summarized in table 6-2.

Table 6-1 Current and expected sediment sources. Watershed Name: Brownlee Observations Priority Source 1: Road instability Are rural roads common in Yes High watershed? Do many road washouts occur Yes High following high rainfall? Are many new roads or road No Low reconstruction planned?

6-154

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 6-1 Current and expected sediment sources. Watershed Name: Brownlee Observations Priority Source 2: Slope instability (not related to roads) Are landslides common in Yes Moderate watershed? Many high-sediment, large-scale Yes Moderate landslides? Source 3: Rural road runoff Are sediment-laden runoff from Yes High rural roads and turbidity in streams common? Is there a high density of rural roads? Yes High Source 4: Urban runoff Are many portions of the watershed No Low urbanized? Source 5: Surface erosion from crop land Is there much crop land in the Some Low watershed? Is there much evidence of sediment Low Low in streams flowing through crop land? Source 6: Surface erosion from range land Is there much range land in Yes High watershed? Is there evidence of sediment in Yes High streams flowing through range land? Source 7: Surface erosion from burned land Have many burns occurred recently Some Moderate (last 5 years), especially hot fires? Was there much sediment created by Some Moderate these burns? Source 8: Other discrete sources of sediment List or identify any other suspected Mining High sources of sediment: Erosion of Brownlee Low shoreline

6-155

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 6-2 Summary of GIS data sources. Name Source Publication Date BLM Fire Baker County office of the BLM on CD 2011 BLM Baker County office of the BLM on CD 2005 Grazing Allotments Bridges Oregon Department of Transportation 2011 ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/tdb/trandata/GIS_data/

Fish Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Passage http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata Barriers Mineral Available on CD from: 2010 Information Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR Layer for Oregon (MILO), Release 2 National United States Geological Survey 2011 Hydrologic http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Data Set (Stream network) Oregon Available on CD from: 2009 Geologic Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR Data Compilation (OGDC) - Release 5 Pine Valley Baker City Office of the Oregon Water Resources Department 1923 Water Right Decree Maps Secondary Baker City Office of the BLM on CD 2012 Roads SLIDOr1 Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 2008 (Landslides) http://cms.oregon.egov.com/DAS/CIO/GEO/pages/alphalist.aspx

6-156

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 6-2 Summary of GIS data sources. Name Source Publication Date Soils maps Natural Resource Conservation Services 2010 and for Baker http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html 2009 County and the Wallowa Whitman National Forest State Oregon Department of Transportation 2009 Highways http://cms.oregon.egov.com/DAS/CIO/GEO/pages/alphalist.aspx USFS Fire Wallowa Whitman National Forest via email. 2007 History USFS Wallowa Whitman National Forest 2009 Grazing Allotments Geology

The oldest rocks in Oregon (Map 6.1) are located in the study area (Orr, Orr, and Baldwin 1992). These rocks originated as island arcs in the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic (over 250 million years ago). The chain of volcanos that make up Hawaii form an island arc. Rocks in an island arc are a diverse mixture of volcanic and sedimentary rocks (shales, limestones, volcaniclastics, and lava flows). Geologists refer to the group of rocks that make up an island arc as a terrane. The terranes in the Blue Mountains once rested on a tectonic plate that pushed them into the North American land mass in a process called accretion. Rocks from three of these accreted terranes are found in the study area: Wallow Terrane, Baker Terrane, and the Olds Ferry Terrane. The process of accretion subjected the Terrane rocks to metamorphism. These metamorphic rocks comprise the Burnt River Schist Formation found in the central portion of the study area between Hibbard Creek and Richland (Ma et al., 2009). West of the assessment area, near Durkee, limestone deposits associated with one of these island arcs is mined for use in cement.

In the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous (160 to 120 million years ago) molten rock intruded into these accreted terrains to form granitic batholiths. The Wallowa Batholith now exposed in the mountain peaks west of Cornucopia is one of these granitic intrusions. Hydrothermal fluids associated with the Wallowa batholith contained the gold that is mined near Cornucopia.

At the completion of the tectonic activity, a broad Cretaceous sea covered much of Oregon. During the Cenozoic (65 million years ago), the Blue Mountains underwent uplift and subsequent erosion. During the Tertiary, andesitic and rhyolitic lavas erupted from volcanos

6-157

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment located to the west. These eruptions were explosive and produced abundant pyroclastic debris and ash. In the assessment area, the volcanic ash and debris collected in streams and lakes. These deposits are exposed in the southern portion of the study area including the watersheds of Benson and Birch Creeks. Numerous landslides have formed and continue to form in this poorly consolidated material.

Extrusion of the Columbia River Basalt group occurred during the Miocene. These basalt flows are visible throughout the study area and dominate the Snake River canyon walls. The area was glaciated during the Pleistocene (2.5 million to 10,000 years ago). These glaciers sculpted mountains, and outwash from the glaciers deposited large amounts of sediment in stream valleys, including Pine Valley.

Landslides

The Manual divides the analysis of landslides into three categories: landslides related to roads, landslides not related to roads, and areas where there is a potential for landslides. The Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) has mapped a limited number of landslides in the assessment area (Burns et al., 2008). In the arid southern portion of the assessment area, unmapped landslides can be seen on the aerial photographs. Landslides in forested areas are much less visible. The PBWC elected to show the DOGAMI-mapped landslides in this assessment and identified additional landslide mapping as a data need (map 6.1). Additional landslides will be mapped using aerial photography and making site visits. When LiDAR data becomes available for the region, it will be an excellent tool for mapping active and ancient landslides.

The very southern portion of the project area is particularly prone to landslides due to abundant, poorly consolidated, volcaniclastic sediments. DOGAMI mapped six landslides in the south ranging in size from 98 to 750 acres. These large, deep-seated landslides are located in areas with gently to moderately sloping topography.

There are 35 mapped landslides located on steep side-slopes along the Snake River Canyon between Farewell Bend and the mouth of the Powder River. These landslides range in size from 1.3 to 367 acres.

In the northern portion of the assessment area there are five mapped landslides in stream valleys: one on North Pine Creek, two on Lake Fork Creek, one that is mapped at the confluence of Elk Creek and Lake Fork Creek, and one on McGraw Creek, a tributary of the Snake River. These landslides range in size from 139 to 1,090 acres.

6-158

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Roads

The Council identified road-stream interactions as a major concern. The GIS road data bases from the BLM (secondary roads) and ODOT (state highways) show that there are 957 miles of secondary roads and 64 miles of state highway (table 6.3) in the subbasin. Comparison of the BLM GIS road data base to aerial photographs shows some inaccuracies: missing roads and mapped roads that do not appear on the aerial photographs. Additional work may be needed to map missing roads near streams, particularly those on steep slopes above streams. The 2010 aerial photograph shows areas of heavy use by ATVs. The PWBC may choose to map and evaluate erosion hazards in these areas.

Following the Manual’s process for identifying roads that may be impacting streams, the analyst identified 1,163 road segments 400 feet or longer located within 200 feet of a stream. From this subset the analyst mapped 174 road segments located on slopes exceeding 50 percent. The results of this research are summarized by surface type and HUC 6 watershed in Tables A6.1 and A6.2, Appendix 6; they are shown on map 6.2.

Table 6-3 Assessment area summary of road length by proximity to a stream and steep slopes.

Length (miles) Secondary roads 957 State highways 64 Secondary roads within 200 feet of a stream 289 State highways within 200 feet of a stream 20 Secondary roads within 200 feet of a stream 10 located on slopes greater than 50% State highways within 200 feet of a stream 1.3 located on slopes greater than 50% Culverts

Culverts are a concern because they may block fish passage and, if undersized, can lead to unwanted sediment movement or retention. The first step in evaluating the stream crossings in the study area was to map points where roads intersected streams. Using GIS, the analyst mapped 1,350 stream crossings, including fords, culverts and bridges. The stream crossings are based on the existing stream network from the CHT map, and BLM and ODOT GIS road data- sets. The point locations were verified using aerial photographs.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012) has mapped 106 culverts in the study area. The Wallowa Whitman National Forest provided the PBWC with a mapped GIS data set of 12 culverts. Seven of the USFS culverts overlap with the ODFW data. The ODFW and USFS

6-159

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment mapped culvert locations are shown on Map 6.2 and detailed information from the ODFW culvert data base is in table 6.3, appendix 6.

The analyst obtained a non-digital copy of USFS culvert locations from the Whitman Ranger District, and a road log documenting culvert locations along the Snake River Road between Richland and Huntington from the Baker County Road Department. The PBWC has identified as data needs:

 mapping and field verification of culvert locations identified by the USFS and Baker County Road Department;

 analysis of culverts on critical streams to determine if they are appropriately sized to handle stream flows; and

 inspections of culverts to determine if they are fish passable.

Gullies

Gullying is a problem for many streams in the assessment area. Map 6.3 shows the mapped locations of the gullies that were visible on aerial photographs.

Photo 6-1 Gully formed on Morgan Creek.

6-160

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Range Land

Most of the watershed assessment area is grazed. The USFS administers 37 grazing allotments covering 143,346 acres; BLM administers 101 grazing allotments covering 145,178 acres. The combined total is 370,059 acres, 78 percent of the watershed assessment area. These grazing allotments are shown on map 6.4.

The Manual’s procedure for evaluating the potential for erosion from grazed lands involves mapping areas with slopes greater than 40% and highly erodible soils. The areas within the watershed on slopes steeper than 40% were determined from Digital Elevation Models using

ArcGIS 3D Spatial Analyst. Soil erosion potential is obtained from soil erodibility values Kw and Kf assigned to Soil Series by the National Resource Conservation Services (NRCS 2011). The K values quantify soil detachment by runoff and raindrop impact. Kw applies to the whole soil, factor Kf applies only to the fine-earth (less than 2.0 mm) fraction. The analyst mapped soils based on Kw because it is applicable to the whole soil. The Manual divides Kw factors into three classes: low (less than 0.2), moderate (0.2 to 0.4) and high (greater than 0.4). The NRCS has only mapped the soils in Baker County, not the Malheur and Wallowa County portions of the subbasin.

The grazing allotment map (map 6.4) also shows the highly erodible soils and areas with slopes greater than 40%. These areas are highly susceptible to erosion so this map can be used to pinpoint areas for further study. Other factors not included in this section that influence erosion rates on grazed lands include grazing practices, fencing to protect streams, and plant cover. The PBWC has identified further studies of these practices, along with site visits, as a data need.

Fire

The BLM and USFS both provided the mapped boundaries of recent fires occurring since 1980 (map 6.5). As in the assessment of range land, the Manual’s procedure for determining the erosion potential is to map areas of steep slopes (greater than 40%) and highly erodible soils.

The burned areas of interest to the PBWC are the Foster Gulch fire in 2006 (53,635 acres), the Twin Lake fire in 2006 (12,066 acres), and the Twin Lakes Fire in 1994 (21,975 acres).

Mining

The DOGAMI has mapped 201 mines, prospects and mineral occurrences (an identified mineral deposit) within the assessment areas (Niewendorp and Geitgey 2010). The DOGAMI mine data base does not include information on surface disturbance, and there is limited information on whether the mines are active. Table 6.4 is a summary of the mining activities by HUC 6 watershed. In table 6-4 a mineral occurrence is a known location of a mineral deposit but no

6-161

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment workings or production, a prospect has workings but no production, and a mine is a present or past producer. Map 6.1 shows the locations of the mines, prospects and mineral occurrences. Table 4 in Appendix 6 provides detailed information on the mining features.

A data need identified by the PBWC is the mapping of mined areas in the watershed. Options for doing this include reviewing mined land records from DOGAMI, BLM and the USFS. Photo 6-2, gravel deposited as a result of placer mining in Connor Creek, shows the impact of mining on nearby streams.

Table 6-4 Summary of mining and prospect in the watershed assessment area. HUC 6 Mining and prospecting activity 1. Road Gulch 8 gold and mercury prospects Snake River 1 occurrence of mercury 1 prospect for quartz crystals and optical calcite 3 gravel quarries 1 mercury and gold mine 2. Upper Birch 1 metal prospect Creek 1 asbestos prospect with some workings but no production 1 cement materials mineral occurrence 1 gravel and sand quarry 3. Love Creek 1 gold prospect developed with workings but no production Reservoir 1 gold and mercury prospect 1 sand and gravel quarry 6. Grouse Creek- 1 gravel quarry Snake River 1 active crushed stone quarry 7. Ryan Gulch- 1 gypsum mine Snake River 1 gravel quarry 1 silver, copper, lead, and zinc mine 8. Morgan Creek- 9 gold prospects Snake River 2 mercury, chromium, gold, and nickel prospects 3 chromium mines 6 gold mines 1 occurrence of gold, silver, copper, and antimony 6 occurrences of cement materials 1 cement materials mine 1 chromium occurrence 1 chromium prospect 2 talc and soap stone occurrence 1 mercury occurrence

6-162

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 6-4 Summary of mining and prospect in the watershed assessment area. HUC 6 Mining and prospecting activity 10. Raft Creek- 4 gold prospects Snake River 1 gold and silver prospect 5 gold and silver mines 5 gold mines 1 gold, silver, antimony and copper mine 1 uranium occurrence 1 gravel quarry 14, Oxbow Dam- 2 silver and gold prospects Snake River 15. Herman Creek- 5 copper occurrences Snake River 7 copper mines 20 copper prospects 1 copper, gold, lead, and zinc prospect 2 copper, gold, and silver mines 1 gold mine 16. McGraw Creek- 1 cement materials prospect Snake River 1 copper prospect 1 gold prospect 17. Hells Canyon 1 copper, silver, and gold prospect Dam-Snake River 18. Upper Pine 1 gold prospect Creek 18 gold mines 1 gold and copper prospect 1 developed gold, lead, copper, silver prospect 1 gold and silver prospect 1 developed gold and silver prospect 2 gold and silver mines 2 gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, arsenic and tellurium mines 1 gold, silver, lead, and copper mine 1 gold, silver, lead, and zinc mine 1 gold, zinc, lead, copper, silver mine 15 unspecified metal prospects 1 silver prospect 1 gravel quarry 19. McMullen 2 gravel quarries Slough 20. Clear Creek 4 gravel quarries 1 silver prospect 1 gold prospect

6-163

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 6-4 Summary of mining and prospect in the watershed assessment area. HUC 6 Mining and prospecting activity 21. East Pine Creek 1 copper, silver and abrasive mine 1 gold prospect 2 sand and gravel quarries 6 crushed stone 22. Deer Creek-Pine 1 sand and gravel quarry Creek 1 crushed stone quarry 23. Fish Creek-Pine 1 crushed stone quarry Creek 24. Upper North 1 gold occurrence Pine Creek 2 crushed stone quarries

25. Lake Fork Creek 2 cement materials prospects 1 gold prospect 1 sand and gravel quarry

Photo 6-2 Conner Creek a tributary of the Snake River located in the Connor Creek Mining District. The increased bed load is likely due to placer mining. Areas of special concern

Road washouts along Snake

Flash floods in the steep-sided canyons along the Snake River transport a significant amount of sediment downstream that damages or obliterates stream crossings. One example is Ballard Creek located eight miles north of Oxbow Dam. Documents provided by the Baker County

6-164

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Road Department describe a rain-on-snow event that occurred on January 1, 1997. The resulting flash flood on Ballard Creek deposited a 25-foot-thick layer of gravels and cobbles. Photo 6-3 shows Ballard Creek at its confluence with the Snake River; photo 6-4, taken upstream of the confluence, shows a debris-filled portion of the channel.

Photo 6-3 Ballard Creek after the 1997 flood at its confluence with the Snake River (photo from Baker County Road Department).

Photo 6-4 Debris in the channel of Ballard Creek after the 1997 flood River (photo from Baker County Road Department).

6-165

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Pine Valley

A large portion of the watershed (123,076 acres) drains through the Pine Valley tributaries. During the last ice age, Pine Valley functioned as a large glacial outwash plain. The valley is 10 miles long and has a total relief of about 1,000 feet between its upper and lower ends. There are two large streams, Pine Creek and Clear Creek, and several smaller but important streams, East Pine Creek, Sag Creek, Lee Creek, and McMullen Slough. Agricultural use of Pine Valley began in the 1870s. There are numerous ditches that divert water from the streams in Pine Valley to irrigate pasture. Land use in the watershed above Pine Valley includes timber, grazing, mining, and recreation on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest.

Photo 6-5 Stream side grazing contributes to erosion problems in Pine Valley.

The River Design Group (2012) has prepared an excellent report on the hydrology of the Pine Valley. The purpose of the report was to document sediment deposition and erosion processes, and to complete three concept-level designs for stream restoration. Erosion problems related to farming, mining, timber harvest, forest roads, and grazing practices, combined with the existing geology, flooding and fire, have contributed to an overabundant sediment load in the Pine Valley tributaries. An overabundance of sediment contributes to poor channel conditions by causing broadening of channels, minimal pool formation, and lateral erosion that destroys stream bank habitat. This abundant sediment, combined with historic channel alterations, also contributes to increased flood risk to farms and to the city of Halfway.

6-166

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The geology of the Pine Creek watershed includes an abundant supply of gravelly glacial sediments. The Wallowa batholith forms bedrock in Pine Valley’s headwaters. Precious minerals associated with the intrusion of the batholith are steadily eroded and deposited in the stream’s gravels forming placer deposits. The Pine Creek placers have been extensively mined since the late 19th century. Downstream of Cornucopia is a recently mined and partially reclaimed two-mile stretch of the stream.

In 2010 a flood destroyed the Holbrook Spur Lane Bridge on Pine Creek (figure 6-1). This event illustrates the erosion and sediment problems in the Pine Valley. Aerial photographs show an overview of the channel in 2009 before the flood and in 2011 after the flood (figures 6-2 and 6-3). A comparison of the two figures shows the erosion and vegetation removal that occurred on the east bank and the overall widening of the channel. The water-right decree map (provided by the Baker City office of the OWRD) superimposed on the 2011 aerial photograph shows a historic channel meander south of the former bridge that no longer exists. Photo 6 (on right) shows this channel today: straight and narrow with no pool development. The stream-side vegetation has stabilized the banks.

Figure 6-1 Map showing the location of the Holbrook Spur Lane Bridge destroyed by the 2010 flood on Pine Creek

6-167

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 6-2 Map showing Pine Creek and the Holbrook Spur Lane Bridge in 2009 prior to the 2010 flood. Note the riparian vegetation on the east bank of the stream north of the bridge.

Figure 6-3 Map showing the Holbrook Spur Lane crossing after the 2010 flood destroyed the bridge. Note that the riparian vegetation north of the bridge on east side of the stream bank is gone and the channel has widened. Photo 6-6 (on left) shows the eroded east bank.

6-168

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 6-4 This map shows the 1923 water right decree map superimposed over the 2011 aerial photograph. The meander bend shown in the 1923 map no longer exists and the channel is now straight.

Photo 6-6 Pine Creek at the upper end of Pine Valley at Holbrook Spur Lane. The channel widened during the 2010 flood, destroyed a bridge, and eroded the streams banks. These two photographs were both taken from the bridge abutment on the west bank: the photo on the left is looking upstream and the photo on the right is looking downstream. The photo on the left shows the stream bank erosion caused by the flood. The photo on the right looking south shows a channelized and straightened section of Pine Creek.

6-169

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Brownlee Shorelines

There are three long reservoirs on the Snake River along the east edge of the Brownlee watershed assessment area. The soil has eroded from the shorelines. These areas do not present restoration opportunities because they are subject to continuing erosion. Therefore, they are not addressed in this assessment.

Conclusions

The first critical question for this chapter asked what the important sediment sources in the assessment area are. The assessment identified the following major sediment sources:  Roads and culverts: there are 1,350 stream crossings, 309 miles of road located within 200 feet of a stream, and 51 miles of road located within 200 feet of a stream on slopes steeper than 50%.  Mining: there are 201 documented mine, prospect or mineral occurrences.  Gully formation: gully formation in the subbasin is widespread.  Fire: the 2006 Twin Lakes fire increased downstream deposition.  Landslides: DOGAMI has mapped 46 landslides in the assessment

The second critical question asks about future sediment sources. No significant new road construction is expected. The existing road network, however, will continue to be an issue. The other issues (fire, gully formation and landslides) are also expected to continue. Whether mining activity increases or decreases is dependent on commodity prices.

The third critical question asks where erosion and sedimentation problems are most severe and qualify as high priorities for restoration. The assessment identified these areas and issues:  Pine Valley: this area has been affected by land-use activities since the late 1800s (grazing, farming, mining and timber production) and is an important area for fisheries. The PBWC is focusing on restoration projects to improve habitat, control sediment, and prevent erosion. The PBWC is also conducting a survey of irrigation diversion points.  Gully Formation: gullying is extensive throughout the watershed so implementing gully control measures and vegetation restoration in key streams is needed to improve the watershed.  Mining: there are mined lands that have not been reclaimed and are contributing to stream sediment load. Mining is an important sediment source in Connor and Pine Creeks.

6-170

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Roads and culverts: properly sized culverts can reduce sediment and erosion issues. The PBWC will continue to map and evaluate the culverts. Roads are an ongoing issue that will be addressed in part by the federal land-management agencies. The PBWC has identified the following as data needs.  Mapping and analysis of culverts for proper sizing and fish passage.  Mapping of landslides that are affecting or have the potential to affect streams.  Mapping of land disturbed by mining and prospecting.  Analysis of erosion rates and amounts from burned areas by obtaining land management agency records and maps.

References

Burns et al, 2008, SLIDOr1, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, available online: http://cms.oregon.egov.com/DAS/CIO/GEO/pages/alphalist.aspx

Ma, et al., 2009, Oregon Geologic Data Compilation Release 5 (Statewide), Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, on CD.

National Resource Conservation Service, 2011, National Soil Survey Handbook, Part 618 – Soil Properties and Qualities http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part618ex.html#91

Niewendorp and Geitgey, 2010, Mineral Information Layer for Oregon (MILO), Release 2, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, on CD.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2012, Fish Passage Barrier Inventories, http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata

Orr, Orr and Baldwin, 1992, Geology of Oregon Fourth Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 254 p.

River Design Group, 2012, Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report, prepared for the Powder Basin Watershed Council.

6-171

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 7 Channel Modification Assessment

Introduction

The purpose of the channel modification chapter is to identify human-caused changes to channels that hinder fish migration and degrade fish habitat. The channel alterations in the Brownlee Subbasin are largely due to dam construction, mining, and water diversion for irrigation. The Manual poses four critical questions.

1. Where are channel modifications located?

2. Where are historic channel disturbances, such as dam failures, splash damming, hydraulic mining, and stream cleaning, located?

3. What CHTs have been impacted by channel modification?

4. What are the types and relative magnitude of past and current channel modifications?

For the purposes of this report, dams are divided into three broad categories: small stock ponds, mid-sized dams regulated by the Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), and large hydroelectric dams. Stock ponds are small dams (less than 10 feet high) constructed across small seasonal or permanent streams for the purpose of providing water to livestock. These types of dams are typically located in the upper reaches of their watersheds. They are very common in the arid portions of the subbasin. Mid-sized dams (those greater than 10 feet in height) are regulated by the OWRD. These dams are constructed for recreation and to store water for irrigation or livestock. There are three large hydroelectric dams located on the Snake River: Brownlee Dam, Oxbow Dam and Hells Canyon Dam. These dams created large reservoirs and have effectively blocked natural fish migration on the Snake River.

Located within the subbasin are precious metal deposits that have attracted mining activity. The channel-altering activities associated with mining include stream-side placer mining, constructing tailings ponds, and dumping tailings in streams. The two streams most affected by mining activity are Conner Creek and Pine Creek.

According to the OWRD water rights data, there are 22,981 acres of land that have surface water rights for irrigation in Pine Valley and 249 points of diversion for irrigation and livestock. This water is diverted from the streams flowing into Pine Valley through a complex system of ditches that deliver water to fields. The structures used to divert water into the irrigation ditches can block fish passage.

7-172

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Beginning in 1872 surveyors for the Government Land Office (GLO) first mapped stream locations in the Pine Valley. The stream locations were mapped again in the 1920s for the adjudication of water rights. These historic maps show how stream channels have been straightened, moved or obliterated. Knowing the former locations of these stream channels provides a picture of the fisheries habitat that existed in the past. This information can be used by the Council as guide in selecting sites for restoration work.

Methods

Table 7-1 contains a list of GIS data sources used to complete the Channel Modification Chapter.

Table 7-1 Summary of GIS data sources and map layers. Name Source Publication Date Fish Passage Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Barriers http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarr ierdata

Mineral Available on CD from: 2010 Information Layer Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR for Oregon (MILO), Release 2 National United States Geological Survey 2011 Hydrologic Data http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Set (Stream network) Pine Valley Water Baker City Office of the Oregon Water Resources 1923 Right Decree Department Maps Dams regulated Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office (from the Oregon 2010 by the OWRD Department of Water Resources) http://cms.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/Pages/alphalist.aspx National Wetland U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory 2012 Inventory http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/State-Downloads.html Water Rights Oregon Department of Water Resources 2012 http://cms.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/maps/index.aspx#Water_R ight_Data_GIS_Themes Government Land Bureau of Land Management 1873 -1882 Office Maps http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php

7-173

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The analyst mapped the dams (map 7.1) using the GIS data sources listed below. The locations of all the dams were confirmed by comparing these data sets to the 2009 and 2010 aerial photographs.

 The National Hydrologic Dataset shows the locations of water bodies.

 The National Wetland Inventory data shows constructed or excavated ponds.

 The Oregon Department of Water Resources data shows dams greater than 10 feet in height that are regulated by the state.

 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife fish passage barriers data which includes dams.

The Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) mining data (MILO) was used to locate mined areas in the subbasin (Niewendorp and Geitgey 2010). The analyst used ArcGIS to examine aerial photographs of these areas for signs of disturbance related to mining and mapped those locations.

The analyst created maps showing the historic location of channels in Pine Valley by overlaying GLO maps from the 1880s and water-right decree maps from the 1920s on the 2010 aerial photograph of Pine Valley (maps 7.2 and 7.3).

During summer 2012, the PBWC monitoring coordinator mapped the surface water points-of- diversion (PODs) in Pine Valley (map 7.4). At each POD, the monitoring coordinator mapped the location with GPS, described the diversion type, checked for the presence of a fish screen, determined whether the POD was a fish barrier, and if so, provided a description of the fish barrier.

Results

Map 7.1 shows the locations of the mapped channel modifications and the fish passage barriers mapped by ODFW (ODFW 2012). Detailed information on the channel modifications is in tables A7.1 and A7.2 appendix 7. The tables include a map reference number, the length of the channel impact, the channel habitat type (CHT) and an estimation of the degree of impact.

The analysis mapped 97 features used for water storage (table 7.2). The most common of these channel modifications are stock ponds. These were generally rated as having a low degree of impact on fish habitat and movement due to their locations in the upper reaches of the watersheds on small, mostly ephemeral streams. The CHTs of these streams are VH, MV and SV. Dams over 10-feet high have a higher degree of impact on fish habitat due to their location

7-174

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment on somewhat larger streams. The CHTs of these streams are MC, MH, MV, SV and VH. Construction of the three hydroelectric dams on the Snake River (Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon) significantly altered the habitat of the Snake River and changed fish migration patterns.

Table 7-2 Channel modifications mapped using GIS. Type of channel modification Number Dam 15 Excavated pond 1 Hydroelectric dam 3 Off channel stock pond 3 Pond created by road 1 Quarry 1 Stock pond 73 Total 97

Mining activity has disturbed rather long stretches of stream channel. The analysis mapped 18 stream reaches impacted by mining. The length of the impacted reaches ranged from 125 to 5,608 feet. The total length of stream channels mapped as impacted by mining is 4.5 miles. These numbers are based on mapping using aerial photography and should be verified by field investigations. Details of the channel modifications due to mining are in appendix 7, table A7.2. All of the mining activity is rated as having a high degree of impact. The CHTs impacted by mining are MV, SV and VH.

Map 7.2 shows the 1880s GLO maps overlain on the 2010 aerial photograph; map 7.3 shows the 1920s water-right decree maps overlain on the 2010 aerial photograph. These maps show how the channels in Pine Valley have been modified over time. One of the biggest changes is between the 1880s and the 1920s is that Pine Creek was moved from the west side of Halfway to the east side of Halfway.

The GLO map completed for the township (T8S, R46E) containing Halfway shows the tributaries of Pine Creek flowing in a general north-to-south direction. It does not show Clear Creek and East Pine Creek flowing from northwest to southwest as they do today. There appear to be some inaccuracies in this map. For example, it shows East Pine Creek entering Pine Valley from the foothills about a mile east of its present location.

The channel changes since the 1920s are less pronounced. Map 7.3 shows reaches on Pine Creek and Clear Creek that have been straightened. The map also shows that many of the smaller tributaries no longer exist or have been diverted into ditches.

The point of diversion survey map 7.4 shows the 227 PODs mapped by the PBWC. Conclusions

7-175

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The channels in the Brownlee Subbasin have been modified in the following ways.

 Small stock ponds have been constructed in the upper reaches of the watershed on small perennial and ephemeral streams. Most of these are located in the arid portions of the study area

 According to the OWRD data base there are 15 dams greater than ten feet in height in the subbasin.

 Channels have been disturbed by mining activities. This is most common along Conner and Pine Creeks.

 The three large hydroelectric dams on the Snake River have significantly altered the habitat of the Snake River.

 Historic maps show that the major stream channels in Pine Valley have been straightened. Smaller tributaries have been diverted into ditches or obliterated.

 The POD survey mapped 227 PODs of which 28 are full or partial fish passage barriers.

The following data needs have been identified:

 The mining impact assessment is based on aerial photographs. This is only a rough estimate and should be verified by conducting field studies.

 The locations of historic channels in Pine Valley should be verified and evaluated for their potential as restoration sites.

References

Niewendorp and Geitgey, 2010, Mineral Information Layer for Oregon (MILO), Release 2, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, on CD.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2012, Fish Passage Barrier Inventories, http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata

7-176

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 8 Water Quality Assessment

Introduction

The goal of the water quality assessment chapter is to assess streams, based on existing data, for obvious water quality impairment. These streams are then identified as targets for further monitoring and/or areas in need of restoration.

The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN 1999) identifies five critical questions pertaining to water quality.

1. What are the designated beneficial uses of water for the stream segment?

2. What are the water quality criteria that apply to the stream reaches?

3. Are the stream reaches identified as water quality limited segments on the 303(d) list by the state?

4. Are any stream reaches identified as high-quality waters or Outstanding Resource Waters?

5. Do water quality studies or evaluations indicate that water quality has been degraded or is limiting the beneficial uses?

Materials and Methods

Table 8.1 taken from the Oregon DEQ website lists the Beneficial uses designated for Powder and Burnt River Basins, which contain the Brownlee Subbasin.

Table 8-1 Oregon DEQ table of Designated Beneficial Uses for the Powder and Burnt River Basins (source: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041tblsfigs.htm August 2005). Beneficial Uses All Basin Waters Public Domestic Water Supply X Private Domestic Water Supply X Industrial Water Supply X Irrigation X Livestock Watering X Fish & Aquatic Life X Wildlife & Hunting X Fishing X

8-177

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-1 Oregon DEQ table of Designated Beneficial Uses for the Powder and Burnt River Basins (source: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041tblsfigs.htm August 2005). Beneficial Uses All Basin Waters Boating X Water Contact Recreation X Aesthetic Quality X Hydro Power X Commercial Navigation & Transportation

The GIS data sets used in the water quality chapter are listed in table 8.2.

Table 8-2 GIS data sets use in chapter 8. Name Source Publication Date National Hydrologic United States Geological Survey 2011 Data Set (Stream http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html network) GIS layers for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2006 Oregon's 2004/2006 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm Streams and Lakes Water Quality

With the exception of temperature data provided by local land management agencies, the information used in this chapter came from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The agency has online reports and an online data base on streams. The DEQ has classified the status of streams into categories based on the amount and quality of available data, as well as the cause of the water quality impairment and the level of the pollutant. Table 8.3 is a list of those categories.

Many of the streams in the Brownlee subbasin are classed as category 3 for various pollutants. A stream is classed as category 3 if there are insufficient data to assign the stream to another category. A stream makes the list in category 3 if a water sample or observation has raised concerns about a particular pollutant.

8-178

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-3 DEQ status code for streams in water quality data base (DEQ 2012). Category Status 1 All standards are met. (This category is not used.) 2 Attaining - Specific water quality standards are met. 3 Insufficient data to determine whether a standard is met. 3B Some data indicate non-attainment of a criterion, but data are insufficient to assign another category. 3C Impairing pollutant unknown. 4 Water is water-quality limited but a TMDL is not needed. 4A TMDL approved - TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved. 4B Other pollution control requirements are expected to address all pollutants and will attain water quality standards. 4C Impairment is not caused by a pollutant (e.g., flow or lack of flow is not considered a pollutant.) 5 Water is water quality limited and a TMDL is needed, Section 303(d) list. Results

303d List

Every two years the DEQ is required to submit a list of streams to the EPA that do not meet standards set forth in the Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d). The 303d list for the Brownlee subbasin includes ten streams that exceeded the criteria for water temperature, and the Snake River which exceeded the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for mercury (table 8.4). The TMDL is the calculated amount of pollutant a water body can receive and still meet Oregon water quality standards (DEQ 2012). The locations of the stream reaches on the 303d list are shown on map 8.1.

Table 8-4 List of 303d streams in DEQ’s 2010 report to the EPA (DEQ 2012). Stream River Mile Parameter Season Criteria Aspen Creek 0 to 1.6 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0 C Beecher Creek 0 to 2.4 Temperature Summer Rearing: 17.8 C Big Elk Creek 0 to 2.1 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0 C Clear Creek 0 to 8.7 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0 C East Pine Creek 0 to 12.2 Temperature Summer Rearing: 17.8 C East Pine Creek 12.2 to 18.7 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0 C Elk Creek 0 to 9.5 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0 C Lake Fork 0 to 10.4 Temperature Summer Rearing: 17.8 C

8-179

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-4 List of 303d streams in DEQ’s 2010 report to the EPA (DEQ 2012). Stream River Mile Parameter Season Criteria Meadow Creek 0 to 3.3 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0 C Okanogan Creek 0 to 1.3 Temperature Summer Rearing: 17.8 C Snake River 280.5 to 404 Mercury Year Toxic substance Around Snake River 244.2 to 268.8 Mercury Year Toxic substance Around Snake River 268.8 to 280.5 Mercury Year Toxic substance Around Trail Creek 0 to 1.6 Temperature Summer Bull Trout: 10.0◦C

Water Temperature

Water temperature is very important for fisheries, amphibians and other aquatic life. The growth and reproduction of fish species is tied to specific temperature regimes. The USFS, BLM and Idaho Power have collected stream temperature data in the Brownlee subbasin. Map 8.1 shows the location of sampling points. The USFS collected temperature data on 14 streams from 1995 to 2005, and it provided the annual maximum seven-day moving average for each of the streams they monitored (table A8.1, appendix 8).

The BLM collected water-temperature data at 12 locations from 1999 to 2002. At eight of these locations, the BLM collected temperature readings multiple times per day. Using these data, the analyst computed the annual maximum, seven-day moving average (table A8.2, appendix 8). At four sites, the BLM collected single readings on four occasions in 1999 and three occasions in 2000. The maximum temperature measured at these four locations is also shown in table A8.2, appendix 8. Idaho Power collected temperature data on Pine Creek above Oxbow Dam from 1998 to 2002 (Hoelscher and Myers 2003).

The Oregon DEQ has developed water-temperature standards for Oregon streams (DEQ 2012). The temperature standards for the streams in the Brownlee Subbasin are listed in table 8.5. The table summarizes how the standards compare to temperature measurements taken by the USFS, BLM and Idaho Power. For example, Aspen Creek is bull trout habitat. In order to thrive, bull trout require water temperatures to be less than 10◦C (50◦F). Aspen Creek is on the 303d list because the USFS measured water temperatures exceeding 10◦C (50◦F). The annual maximum temperature (seven-day moving average) measured in Aspen Creek ranged from 17◦C (62◦F) to 19◦C (67◦F) degrees from 1998 to 2005 (table A8.1, appendix 8).

8-180

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The DEQ has not defined temperature standards for all streams in the project area. The agency’s regulations2, however, established a default seven-day-average maximum of 18◦C (64◦F) for streams used for salmon and trout rearing, and fish migration. In table 8.4 this standard is used for Deer and Duck Creeks, which lack defined temperature standards.

Table 8-5 Streams included in the DEQ’s data base due to temperature concerns. The DEQ status for the streams is compared to water temperature data provided by the BLM, USFS and Idaho Power. Water Body River Season Criteria Status Data Measured Miles Category Source Temperature Exceeds Criteria for 7-Day Moving Average Aspen Creek 0 to Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 5 USFS Yes 1.6 (50◦F) Beecher 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 5 USFS Yes Creek 2.4 (64◦F) Benson 0 to Undefined Undefined 3 None - Creek 7.4 Big Elk 0 to Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 5 USFS Yes Creek 2.1 (50◦F) Clarks Creek 0 to 2 Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 2 None - (64◦F) Clear Creek 0 to Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 5 USFS Yes 8.7 (50◦F) Connor 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C Criteria BLM No Creek 6.7 (64◦F) change or use clarification Connor 0 to Year Redband or 2 BLM No Creek 6.7 Around Lahontan (Non- cutthroat trout: spawning) 20◦C (68◦F) 7- day-average maximum Deer Creek 0 to Undefined Exceeds 17.8◦C 3 USFS Yes 5.7 (64◦F) Duck Creek 0 to 6 Undefined Exceeds 17.8◦C 3 USFS Yes (64◦F)

2 OAR 340-041-0028 4 (c)

8-181

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-5 Streams included in the DEQ’s data base due to temperature concerns. The DEQ status for the streams is compared to water temperature data provided by the BLM, USFS and Idaho Power. Water Body River Season Criteria Status Data Measured Miles Category Source Temperature Exceeds Criteria for 7-Day Moving Average East Fork 0 to Year Bull trout 2 USFS Yes Pine Creek 4.5 Around spawning and (Non- juvenile rearing: spawning) 12◦C (53.6◦F) 7-day-average maximum East Pine 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 5 USFS Yes Creek1 12.2 (64◦F) East Pine 12.2 Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 5 USFS Yes Creek1 to (50◦F) 18.7 Elk Creek1 0 to Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 5 USFS Yes 9.5 (50◦F) Fish Creek 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 2 - - 12.8 (64◦F) Fox Creek 0 to March 1 - Spawning: 17.8◦C Criteria BLM No 6.4 June 30 (64◦F) change or use clarification Fox Creek 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C Criteria BLM No 6.4 (64◦F) change or use clarification Fox Creek 0 to Year Redband or 2 BLM No 6.4 Around Lahontan (Non- cutthroat trout: : spawning) 20◦C (68◦F) 7- day-average maximum Hibbard 0 to Undefined Undefined 3 None - Creek 5.8 Lake Fork 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 5 USFS Yes 10.4 (64◦F) Lake Fork 3.6 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 2 USFS Yes 10.4 (64◦F)

8-182

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-5 Streams included in the DEQ’s data base due to temperature concerns. The DEQ status for the streams is compared to water temperature data provided by the BLM, USFS and Idaho Power. Water Body River Season Criteria Status Data Measured Miles Category Source Temperature Exceeds Criteria for 7-Day Moving Average Lee Creek 0 to Undefined 3 None - 6.6 Meadow 0 to Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 5 USFS Yes Creek 3.3 (50◦F) Meadow 0 to Summer Bull Trout: 10◦C 3B USFS Yes Creek 2.6 (50◦F) Melhorn 0 to 0 Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 2 None - Creek (64◦F) Morgan 0 to Year Redband or 5 BLM Yes Creek 6.1 Around Lahontan (Non- cutthroat trout: : spawning) 20◦C (68◦F) 7- day-average maximum Okanogan 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 5 USFS Yes Creek 1.3 (64◦F) Okanogan 1.3 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 2 USFS No Creek 2.5 (64◦F) Pine Creek 0 to Year Redband or 5 USFS No 30.2 Around Lahontan Idaho Yes (Non- cutthroat trout: : Power spawning) 20◦C (68◦F) 7- day-average maximum Pole Creek 0 to Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 2 None - 2.2 (64◦F) Quicksand 0 to Year Redband or 5 BLM Yes Creek 3.6 Around Lahontan (Non- cutthroat trout: : spawning) 20◦C (68◦F) 7- day-average maximum Snake River 244.2 Summer Rearing: 17.8◦C 4A DEQ - to (64◦F) 268.8

8-183

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Dissolved Oxygen

Native salmon and trout are adapted to live in cold water that has a high content of dissolved- oxygen (DO). The optimum DO content varies by fish species and life stage. A high DO content is particularly important for developing fish embryos. The DEQ has set criteria for DO based on beneficial use. For example, the East Fork Pine Creek has a DO criterion of 11.0 mg/l for bull trout spawning and rearing. In the absence of an assigned criterion, the Manual recommends using a default DO content of 8.0 mg/l for a screening-level assessment. In the Brownlee Subbasin, there are limited data available for DO measurements. The DEQ lists nine stream reaches of concern in their data base; seven of these reaches are classified as having insufficient data (category 3). Two reaches of Pine Creek are listed as having met the criterion (category 2).

Table 8-6 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about dissolved oxygen (DEQ 2010). Stream River Mile Season Status Beneficial Use Impact / Criteria

Clear Creek 0 to 8.7 Undefined 3 Salmonid fish spawning, salmonid fish rearing, resident fish and aquatic life East Fork Pine Creek 0 to 4.5 August 15 3 Resident trout spawning, bull - June 15 trout spawning and juvenile rearing / not less than 11.0 mg/l

8-184

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-6 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about dissolved oxygen (DEQ 2010). Stream River Mile Season Status Beneficial Use Impact / Criteria

East Pine Creek 0 to 12.5 Undefined 3 Salmonid fish spawning, Resident fish and aquatic life, anadromous fish passage, salmonid fish rearing Fox Creek 0 to 6.4 Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, salmonid fish rearing, salmonid fish spawning Hibbard Creek 0 to 5.8 Undefined 3 Salmonid fish rearing, salmonid fish spawning, resident fish and aquatic life, anadromous fish passage Lee Creek 0 to 6.6 Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, anadromous fish passage, salmonid fish spawning, salmonid fish rearing Morgan Creek 0 to 6.1 Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, salmonid fish rearing, salmonid fish spawning Pine Creek 0 to 14.6 Summer 2 Salmonid fish rearing / not less than 6.5 mg/l Pine Creek 14.5 to Summer 2 Resident fish and aquatic life, 32.6 salmonid fish rearing / not less than 6.5 mg/l

Toxic Substances

The DEQ developed a list of substances regarded as toxic (DEQ 1997). Stream reaches are listed when levels of toxic substances exceed background values (DEQ 2011). In the Brownlee subbasin there are four streams that are listed as having toxic substances (table 8.7). Seven of the stream reaches are categorized as having insufficient data, and the Snake River is listed as category 2 for ammonia, and listed as category 5 for mercury. The DEQ notes that data collected since 1969 have shown that the average mercury content measured in fish tissue to be 0.41 parts per million (DEQ 2010). Herger and Edmond (2012), in an EPA report, confirm the presence of mercury in fish tissue in the Powder River Arm of the Brownlee Reservoir. The DEQ attributes the mercury content to natural sources and the influence of historical mining (DEQ 2010).

8-185

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-7 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about toxic substances (DEQ 2010). Stream River Mile Substance Season Category Beneficial Use Impact Status East Fork 0 to 4.5 Alkalinity Year 3 Aquatic life Pine Creek Around East Fork 0 to 4.5 Ammonia Year 3 Aquatic life Pine Creek Around East Fork 0 to 4.5 Chloride Year 3 Aquatic life Pine Creek Around Lake Fork 0 to 10.4 Toxics Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, and anadromous fish Pine Creek 0 to 32.7 Toxics Undefined 3 Drinking water Snake River 0 to 355.2 Alkalinity Year 3 Aquatic life Around Snake River 0 to 355.2 Ammonia Year 2 Aquatic life Around Snake River 280.5 to Pesticides Undefined 3 Resident fish, aquatic life, and 404 drinking water. Snake River 244.2 to Mercury Year 5 Resident fish, aquatic life, and 268.8 round drinking water Snake River 268.8 to Mercury Year 5 Resident fish, aquatic life, and 280.5 round drinking water

Infectious Organisms

The DEQ has included the Snake River in its data base due to concerns about fecal coliform and E. coli (table 8.8).

Table 8-8 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about infectious organisms (DEQ 2010). Stream River Mile Substance Season Status Beneficial Use Impact Snake River 244.2 to Fecal Summer 2 Water contact recreation 268.8 Coliform Snake River 280.5 to 404 Fecal Year 2 Water contact recreation Coliform round Snake River 280.5 to 404 E. Coli Year 3 Water contact recreation round

8-186

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Biocriteria

Biocriteria is an assessment criterion of stream health based on the assemblage of macroinvertebrates in a stream reach, as compared to DEQ reference sites (DEQ 2011). Macro invertebrates (insects, crustaceans, snails, clams, worms, and mites) are adapted to various water quality conditions. The presence, absence and abundance of various species in biological communities are useful indicators of overall water quality. The DEQ lists one stream, Meadow Creek, as having some indicators of failing to meet this biocriteria criterion (category 3b). The other streams on DEQ’s list are classified as having met the biocriteria criterion (category 2).

Table 8-9 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about the biocriteria (DEQ 2010). Stream River mile Season Status Category Beneficial Use Impact Duck Creek 0 to 6 Year 2 Aquatic life Around East Fork Pine Creek 0 to 4.5 Year 2 Aquatic life Around East Pine Creek 0 to 18.7 Year 2 Aquatic life Around Meadow Creek 0 to 2.6 Year 3B Aquatic life Around North Pine Creek 0 to 16.3 Year 2 Aquatic life Around

Habitat Modification

Habitat modification falls into DEQ’s category 4C: “water quality limited but a pollutant does not cause the impairment.” Examples of habitat modification that impair water quality are a lack of woody debris and inadequate pool frequency (DEQ 2011). Table 8.10 names the streams that the DEQ has listed as water quality impaired due to habitat modification.

Table 8-10 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about habitat modifications (DEQ 2010). Stream River Season Status Beneficial Use Impact mile Category Benson 0 to 7.4 Undefined 4 Salmonid fish spawning, resident fish, Creek aquatic life, and salmonid fish rearing Connor 0 to 6.7 Undefined 4 Salmonid fish spawning, resident fish, Creek aquatic life, and salmonid fish rearing Deer Creek 0 to 5.7 Undefined 4 Resident fish, aquatic life, salmonid fish rearing, and salmonid fish spawning Fox Creek 0 to 6.4 Undefined 4 Resident fish, aquatic life, salmonid fish rearing, and salmonid fish spawning

8-187

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-10 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about habitat modifications (DEQ 2010). Stream River Season Status Beneficial Use Impact mile Category Hibbard 0 to 5.8 Undefined 4 Salmonid fish spawning, resident fish Creek aquatic life, and salmonid fish rearing Long Branch 0 to 4.8 Undefined 4 Resident fish, aquatic life, salmonid fish spawning, and salmonid fish rearing Morgan 0 to 6.1 Undefined 4 Resident fish, aquatic life, salmonid fish Creek rearing, and salmonid fish spawning Pine Creek 0 to Undefined 4 Salmonid fish spawning, resident fish, 32.7 aquatic life, and salmonid fish rearing Snake River 280.5 Undefined 4 Resident fish, aquatic life, salmonid fish to 404 rearing, and salmonid fish spawning

Flow Modification

Like habitat modification, flow modification is rated as category 4 because the water quality impairment is not due to a pollutant (table 8-11). The DEQ rates a stream as lacking sufficient flow if there is not enough flow to meet the flow requirements for in-stream water rights held by ODFW (DEQ 2011).

Table 8-11 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about flow modification (DEQ 2010). Stream River Season Status Beneficial Use Impact mile Category Clear Creek 0 to 8.7 Undefined 4 Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid fish spawning, Salmonid fish rearing Dry Creek 0 to 8.9 Undefined 4 Salmonid fish spawning, Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid fish rearing East Pine 0 to 12.5 Undefined 4 Salmonid fish rearing, Salmonid fish Creek spawning, Resident fish and aquatic life Lee Creek 0 to 6.6 Undefined 4 Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid fish rearing, Salmonid fish spawning Morgan 0 to 6.1 Undefined 4 Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid Creek fish rearing, Salmonid fish spawning Pine Creek 0 to 32.7 Undefined 4 Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid fish rearing, Salmonid fish spawning Pine Creek 14.5 to Undefined 4 Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid 32.6 fish spawning, Salmonid fish rearing Snake River 280.5 to Undefined 4 Salmonid fish rearing, Resident fish and 404 aquatic life, Salmonid fish spawning

8-188

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Sedimentation

The deposition and movement of sediment in streams is a natural process. If excess sediment enters the stream, however, it can be detrimental to stream health. Excess sediment is the result of above-normal erosion rates due to land disturbance. The DEQ considers excess sedimentation a problem when it becomes deleterious to fish or other aquatic life, or injurious to public health, recreation or industry (DEQ 2011). The DEQ has listed 11 streams as possibly water-quality impaired for sedimentation (table 8-12). These streams are all category 3 due to insufficient data.

Table 8-12 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about sedimentation (DEQ 2010). Stream River Season Status Beneficial Use Impact mile Benson 0 to Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, salmonid fish Creek 7.4 rearing, and salmonid fish spawning Connor 0 to Undefined 3 Salmonid fish rearing, salmonid fish Creek 6.7 spawning, resident fish, and aquatic life Deer Creek 0 to Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, salmonid fish 5.7 spawning, and salmonid fish rearing Dry Creek 0 to Undefined 3 Resident fish, aquatic life, salmonid fish 8.9 rearing, and salmonid fish spawning Fox Creek 0 to Undefined 3 Salmonid fish spawning, Resident fish and 6.4 aquatic life,and salmonid fish rearing Hibbard 0 to Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, salmonid fish Creek 5.8 spawning, and salmonid fish rearing Lake Fork 0 to Undefined 3 Salmonid fish spawning, Resident fish and 10.4 aquatic life, and salmonid fish rearing Long 0 to Undefined 3 Salmonid fish rearing, salmonid fish Branch 4.8 spawning, resident fish, and aquatic life Morgan 0 to Undefined 3 Salmonid fish spawning, salmonid fish Creek 6.1 rearing, resident fish, and aquatic life Pine Creek 0 to Undefined 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, salmonid fish 32.7 rearing, salmonid fish spawning Snake River 280.5 Undefined 3 Salmonid fish rearing, resident fish, aquatic to life, and salmonid fish spawning 404 pH

The DEQ has set the pH criterion for the Powder/Burnt River basins at 6.5 to 9.0 and for the main stem of the Snake River at 7.0 to 9.0 (DEQ 2011). Table 8-13 lists the streams that met the criteria (category 2) and those for which there were insufficient data to assign to another category (category 3). The Manual notes that measurement of pH is very important in mining

8-189

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment areas because of the potential for heavy metals and low pH. Also, metal ions tend to shift to more toxic forms at lower pH values.

Table 8-13 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about pH (DEQ 2010). Stream River mile Season pH Status Beneficial Use impact Category East Fork 0 to 4.5 Summer 6.5 to 3 Water contact recreation, Pine Creek 9.0 resident fish, and aquatic life Pine Creek 0 to 32.7 Summer 6.5 to 2 Resident fish and aquatic life, 9.0 water contact recreation Snake River 244.2 to Summer 6.5 to 2 Salmonid fish rearing, Resident 268.8 9.0 fish and aquatic life, Water contact recreation, salmonid fish spawning, anadromous fish passage Snake River 280.5 to 404 Summer 6.5 to 2 Water contact recreation, 9.0 Salmonid fish spawning, Resident fish and aquatic life, Salmonid fish rearing Snake River 280.5 to 404 Fall, 7.0 to 3 Resident fish and aquatic life, Winter 9.0 water contact recreation and Spring Snake River 280.5 to 404 Summer 7.0 to 2 Resident fish and aquatic life, 9.0 Water contact recreation

Miscellaneous Pollutants

Chlorophyll is the green pigment that plants use for photosynthesis and chlorophyll a is the active portion. High amounts of chlorophyll a in the water indicate nuisance-phytoplankton growth. Excess phosphates and nutrients can lead to excessive growth of algae and aquatic-weed growth. In reservoirs this can lead to eutrophication. Table 8.13 lists the streams that are a concern for these pollutants.

Table 8-14 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about miscellaneous pollutants (DEQ 2012). Stream River Pollutant Season Status Beneficial Use Impact mile Category Snake River 0 to Chlorophyll Summer 3 Water contact recreation, 355.2 a Aesthetics, Water supply, Livestock watering, Fishing Snake River 280.5 Nutrients Undefined 3 Aesthetics to 404

8-190

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 8-14 Streams included in DEQ’s database due to concerns about miscellaneous pollutants (DEQ 2012). Stream River Pollutant Season Status Beneficial Use Impact mile Category East Fork 0 to Phosphate Summer 3 Aquatic life Pine Creek 4.5 Phosphorus Snake River 0 to Phosphate Summer 3 Aquatic life 354.7 Phosphorus

Conclusions

The DEQ has compiled a state-wide data base of water-quality impaired streams in Oregon. The DEQ has also compiled a list of beneficial uses by basin. The beneficial uses that are affected by water quality impairment in the subbasin are listed below.

 Public and Private Domestic Water Supply: the Snake River is on the 303d list for mercury and included in the data base for chlorophyll a (an indicator of excessive phytoplankton growth).

 Livestock Watering: the Snake River is included in the DEQ data base for chlorophyll a.

 Fish and Aquatic Life: streams in the subbasin are water quality impaired due to high temperature, toxic substances, poor biocriteria, habitat modification, flow modification, sedimentation, and pH. Ten stream reaches are included on the 303d list due to high water-temperature in streams inhabited by bull trout.

 Water Contact Recreation: the Snake River is included in the data base due to positive tests for fecal coliform and E. coli.

 Aesthetic Quality: The Snake River is included in the DEQ data base due to the presence of nutrients.

One of the DEQ’s critical questions asks if any of the streams in the study area are Outstanding Resource Waters. There are no Outstanding Resource Waters in the Brownlee Subbasin.

Data Gaps

Data needs include the following:

 Monitoring the pH of streams where mining has occurred and

 Continued temperature monitoring of streams impaired for water quality.

 Initiate a monitoring program to assess if dissolved oxygen is a concern.

8-191

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

References

Herger, Lillian and Edmond, Lorraine, 2012, EPA Region 10 Report, Assessment of Mercury in Fish Tissue from Select Lakes of Northeastern Oregon http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/publications/reports/hg_in_fish_tissue_ne_or_feb2012.pdf

Hoelscher, Brian and Myers, Ralph, 2003, Tributary Pollutant Sources to the Hells Canyon Complex, Idaho Power Technical Report Appendix E.2.2-1, Hells Canyon Complex FERC No. 1971, http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/Relicensing/hellscanyon/hellspdfs/techappendices/Water%20 Quality/e22_01.pdf

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1997, Table 20, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/Table20old.pdf

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2006, 2004/2006 Integrated Water Quality Data Base http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2010, Water Quality Assessment - Oregon's 2010 Integrated Report Assessment Database and 303(d) List, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2011, Methodology for Oregon’s 2010 Water Quality Report and List of Water Quality Limited Waters, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/2010Report.htm

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2012, Water Quality Assessment, web page http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, Assessment of Mercury in Fish Tissue from Select Lakes of Northeastern Oregon, http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/publications/reports/hg_in_fish_tissue_ne_or_feb2012.pdf

8-192

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 9 Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to determine which fish species are present within the subbasin, their distribution, and the current and historical habitat limitations for these fish species.

The critical questions identified in the Manual are:

1. What fish species are documented in the watershed? Are any of these currently state – or federally listed as endangered or candidate species? Are there any fish species that historically occurred in the watershed which no longer occur there?

2. What is the distribution, relative abundance, and population status of salmonid (fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, and char) species in the watershed.

3. Which salmonid species are native to the watershed, and which have been introduced to the watershed?

4. Are there potential interactions between native and introduced species?

5. What is the condition of fish habitat in the watershed (by subbasin) according to existing habitat data?

6. What are potential barriers to fish migration?

History  Before Idaho Power Company (IPC) constructed the three Hells Canyon Complex (HCC) dams, the anadromous salmonid populations that migrated through Hells Canyon included summer steelhead and fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon.  Mining, logging, and irrigation are, in part, what caused the decline in salmon and steelhead runs. Construction of the HCC of dams, beginning with Brownlee Dam in 1958 created the final barrier to anadromous fish passage and eliminated the last of the salmon and steelhead runs from the subbasin.  The Snake River (Hells Canyon Reservoir) is a migratory corridor for bull trout connecting known populations in the Pine Creek watershed and Indian Creek in Idaho. Connectivity of known bull trout populations is poor due to degraded habitat, stream dewatering and passage barriers. Figure 9-1 shows the distribution of bull trout in the study area. Figure 9-2 shows the distribution of white sturgeon in the Snake River.

9-193

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Native interior redband trout are distributed throughout assessment area streams, as are introduced brook trout (map 9.1).  There are large populations of introduced non-native fish that inhabit the Snake River reservoirs which support a very large recreational fishery. Native fish that reside in the assessment area include bull trout, white sturgeon, interior redband trout, mountain whitefish with other species including lamprey, largescale and bridgelip suckers several species from the minnow family (Cyprinidae), and freshwater mussels. Introduced species include largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, carp, channel catfish, flathead catfish bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappie, white crappie, and brook trout.

Materials and Methods

The distribution of native fish species was mapped and quantified using data obtained from the ODFW’s Oregon Natural Resources Information Management Program website (http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?p=259) , Stream Net (http://www.streamnet.org), and Idaho Fish and Game (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ ).

9-194

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 9-1 Distribution of bull trout.

9-195

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Figure 9-2 Distribution of white sturgeon.

9-196

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map 9.1, figures 9-1 and 9-2 show fish species distribution in the study area using the GIS data from table 9.1.

Table 9-1 Summary of GIS data sources. Name Source Publication Date Distribution Provided by the LaGrande Office of the Oregon Department of Fish unknown of brook and Wildlife trout Distribution Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 of redband https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishdistdata and bull trout Distribution Stream Net 2012 of white http://www.streamnet.org/mapping_apps.cfm sturgeon Fish Passage Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Barriers http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdat a

National United States Geological Survey 2011 Hydrologic http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Data Set (Stream network) Results and Discussion

Map 9.1 shows the known distribution of resident fish. Fish passage barriers delineated on the map includes cascade, gradient/velocity, culverts, dams and falls. There are several perennial streams with no fish presence indicated. The following is a discussion of the critical questions.

Bull trout is the threatened fish species documented in the study area and historically fish species were Chinook salmon and steelhead. Documented sensitive species include the interior redband trout. Summer steelhead and fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon, summer steelhead, redband (map 9.1) trout, bull trout (figure 9-1), coho, sturgeon (figure 9-2), and lamprey historically occurred in the watershed. Rainbow trout are stocked in streams and reservoirs for fishing. Non- native brook and brown trout are found within the study area.

9-197

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

2. What is the distribution, relative abundance, and population status of salmonid (fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, and char) species in the watershed?

Bull trout habitat needs include channel stability, substrate composition, cover, temperature, and migratory corridors. Bull trout reside in a tributary of Sheep Creek, Elk Creek, East Pine Creek, Clear Creek and Meadow Creek, East Fork Pine Creek, and the upper tributaries of West Fork Pine Creek and Middle Fork Pine Creek (figure 9-1).

3. Which salmonid species are native to the watershed, and which have been introduced to the watershed?

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and bull trout (Salvenlinus confluentus) are native to the subbasin, however both steelhead and chinok are extinct from the watershed. Interior redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are distributed thought out the watershed while mountain whitefish are more restricted in distribution. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontenalis) have been introduced to reservoirs, lakes and streams within the watershed and are now maintained through natural reproduction. Release of hatchery-reared brook trout for fishery purposes has not occurred for approximately 20 years. Hatchery-reared rainbow trout are currently released in a number of lakes, reservoirs and streams for fishery purposes.

4. Are there potential interactions between native and introduced species?

Potential interactions between bull trout and brook trout: a growing body of evidence suggests nonnative trout can substantially change aquatic ecosystems wherever they are present, as documented in Clackamas River Bull Trout monitoring of the reintroduction program (Shivey et al., 2007). Brook trout threaten native bull trout populations through competition, predation and hybridization. The difficulty of eradicating established populations of brook trout suggests they will remain in many aquatic ecosystems into the foreseeable future. Brook trout appear to adapt better to degraded habitats and higher water temperatures than bull trout, yet in areas of clean, cold water with complex habitat, bull trout may successfully compete with brook trout (Dunham, et al., 2011).

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders and prey on whatever fish species or aquatic organisms are present and in the most abundance. Within the assessment area, juvenile anadromous salmonids historically provided an important forage base for bull trout. This forage base may not have been replaced by other species and bull trout populations may have responded accordingly by reductions in their abundance and distribution.

9-198

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The Snake River Reservoirs are populated by a myriad of introduced fish species with representatives from the families Cetrarchidae (crappie and bass) and Percidae (perch). Both bull trout and interior redband trout utilize these reservoirs as feeding, migration and over- wintering habitat. Where this interaction occurs, native trout are negatively impacted by both predation and competition.

5. What is the condition of fish habitat in the watershed (by sub-basin) according to existing habitat data?

Fish habitat within the study area is largely degraded from historical conditions. Riparian vegetation is low in density and width, and of poor quality. Invasive plant species are present as well.

Much of the headwater and valley terrain in the Brownlee Subbasin is very steep, and comprise 76% of the mapped stream network (See Chapter 3 Channel Habitat Types) These high gradient streams provide limited opportunities for restoration due to the steep gradient and channel confinement.

The Pine Valley watershed has the most diversity and fish habitat opportunity of the CHTs in the study area. Pine Creek and its tributaries are considered critical habitat for bull trout. Their decline has been attributed to freshwater habitat reduction, passage barriers and poor water quality. There are many opportunities for restoration and enhancement, including the restoration of riparian vegetation, channel complexity, and the removal of passage barriers.

At the south end of the study area, Birch Creek and Benson Creek have low gradient CHTs that are responsive to change and are suitable for restoration and enhancement.

The Oregon Health Authority (2012) issued a new advisory warning of high mercury levels found in fish at Brownlee reservoir. The advisory includes warm-water fish such as smallmouth bass, white and black crappie, and yellow perch. People are advised to limit their consumption to three meals per month.

Aquatic habitat data were reported for the portions of the stream network where they were available (Demeter unpublished data). This primarily includes a 15-mile segment of Pine Creek surveyed for the Pine Creek Restoration Opportunity Report. Additionally, limited surveys have been conducted using the ODFW Aquatic Inventories (AQI) protocol on roughly 14 miles of stream, including portions of McGraw, Fox and Morgan Creeks. The aquatic inventory provides quantitative information on habitat conditions for streams. The information is used to help establish monitoring programs and to inform habitat restoration efforts.

9-199

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

The US Fish and Wildlife Service web site provides information regarding the habitat range of federally threatened and endangered species by county. Field inventories in the study area would provide more specific and local data on the needs of these threatened and endangered fish species.

6. Potential barriers to fish migration: culverts and dams.

Passage barriers occur within the assessment area as large main stem hydroelectric dams, irrigation diversion structures and culverts. Map 9.1 shows the known fish passage barriers mapped by the ODFW.

The PBWC mapped the surface-water points of diversion in the Pine Creek watershed. Twenty eight of these were determined to be a barrier to fish passage (map 7.4).

References

Dunham, et al., 2011, Assessing the Feasibility of Native Fish Reintroductions: A Framework Applied to Threatened Bull Trout, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31: 1, p. 106-115, First published on: March, 11 2011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2011.559830

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2012, Natural Resources Information Management Program, available on line: http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?p=259

Oregon Department of Forestry, 2012, Fish Presence and Stream Size Data, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/gis_home.shtml

Oregon Health Authority, 2012, Fish Consumption, Brownlee Reservoir Mercury Levels, available online: http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/Pages/fishconsumption.aspx

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 1991, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/docs/pubs/or_wsassess_manuals.aspx

Shively, et al., 2007, in Clackamas River Bull Trout Reintroduction Feasibility Assessment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, available online: http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/BullTrout/ReintroductionProject.asp

Simon, K.S., and Townsend, C.R., 2003, Impacts of Freshwater in- Vaders at Different Levels of Ecological Organization, with Emphasis on Salmonids and Ecosystem Consequences, in Freshwater Biology, Volume 48, Issue 6, p. 982–994, Wiley and Sons. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fwb.2003.48.issue-6/issuetoc .

9-200

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Stream Net, 2012, available online http://www.streamnet.org/ .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: www.fws.gov/endangered/map/state/OR.html (endangered species)

9-201

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 10 Watershed Condition Evaluation

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize key findings in the watershed, identify data gaps, establish priorities for action, and to identify key areas for habitat protection and restoration. Included is a discussion on how the watershed conditions have changed over time and how those changes are affected by ongoing resource manage and land use activities.

The Manual identifies the following critical questions for the condition evaluation chapter. 1. What are the information and data gaps identified in the assessment process?

2. What were the historical conditions of the aquatic–riparian areas within the watershed?

3. What are the historical changes (legacies), and land uses and resource management trends that have contributed to impacts in habitat quality, and fish presence and abundance?

4. What ongoing resource management/land use activities are contributing to continued impacts on the watershed resources?

5. What are important issues and key aquatic–riparian areas that need to be addressed to restore and protect watershed resources?

Methods and Materials

Table 10.1 summarizes the findings in the previous nine chapters. The table is subdivided into three general physiographic regions: the HUC 6 watersheds that make up the southern foothills, the HUC 6 watersheds that border the Snake River Canyon, and the HUC 6 watersheds that drain into Pine Creek. The intent of the table is to summarize key findings, identify data gaps, and identify potential responses. The working group used the table as an outreach tool to gather additional comments and information from Watershed Council members and attendees at the outreach meetings. The table does not include information for the Snake River. These issues are covered in a separate section of this chapter. Table 10.2 lists the GIS data sources used in this chapter.

Streams with CHTs that have high and moderate sensitivity to change are identified by the Manual as stream types most amenable to restoration. The streams lacking riparian vegetation (low shade) have the highest need for restoration. Map 10.1 combines shading and CHT to show those streams that have high and moderate CHT sensitivity to change and low shade. This map can be used to identify potential sites for restoration.

10-202

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 10-1 Summary of GIS data sources and map layers. Name Source Publication Date Fish Passage Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Barriers http://rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierda ta

Public Oregon Department of Forestry 2011 Ownership http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/gis/gisdata.aspx Mineral Available on CD from: 2010 Information Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR Layer for Oregon (MILO), Release 2 National United States Geological Survey 2011 Hydrologic http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Data Set (Stream network) Fish Oregon Department of Forestry 2011 Presence, http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/fishpresence.shtml Stream Size, and Flow Duration Fish Stream Net 2012 Distribution http://www.streamnet.org/mapping_apps.cfm

Snake River

The Snake River forms the 92-mile-long east boundary of the study area. Much of this river reach is impounded in reservoirs behind the three large dams: Hells Canyon, Oxbow and Brownlee. These dams serve as barriers to fish passage. Concerns with regard to the reservoirs include shoreline erosion, the proliferation of weedy plants along the shoreline during low water, and the risk of landslide debris entering the reservoir.

Water quality is a concern for the Snake River. The river is listed on the Oregon DEQ’s 303d list for mercury. Other water quality concerns documented in DEQ’s data base are: temperature, toxic substances, E. Coli, habitat and flow modification, sedimentation, low pH levels, lack of dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll A, nutrients, and phosphorous / phosphate.

10-203

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

There are large populations of introduced non-native fish that inhabit the Snake River reservoirs that support a very large recreational fishery. Introduced species include largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, carp, channel catfish, flathead catfish bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappie, white crappie and brook trout. Native fish in the Snake River include redband and white sturgeon. Bull trout are found in the Hells Canyon Reservoir.

Discussion of Critical Questions

What are the information and data gaps identified in the assessment process?

Table 10.3 is a summary of the data gaps identified in the watershed assessment. Data gaps specific to particular HUC 6 watersheds are identified in table 10.1.

Table 10-2 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment. Data Gap Description Inaccuracies in the National The smaller tributaries in many of the HUC 6 watershed are not Hydrologic Data set map of mapped or are shown in the wrong location. These can be mapped the stream network with aerial photography using GIS. Inaccuracies in the road Recent aerial photographs show roads that are not mapped or are network data from the BLM not correctly located. These can be mapped with aerial photography using GIS. Lack of detail on fish presence The Streamnet data on fish presence focuses on a few key species. in the GIS data base from The data base does not provide any information on fish presence Streamnet. org and use for most of the streams in the assessment area. Field work with electrofishing in the creeks would provide more fish presence detail. Fish Passage Barriers due to The analyst using aerial photographs and BLM road data mapped stream crossings 1,350 stream crossings by roads. The stream crossings in sensitive areas should be evaluated in the field to determine if they represent fish barriers. Fish Passage Barriers due to The PBWC is conducting a study to map the points of diversion in water diversion structures the Pine Creek watershed. This study includes determining if the structures are fish passage barriers. Road / stream interactions The analyst identified 308 miles of road within 200 feet of a stream and a subset of 11.4 miles of road located on side slopes exceeding 50 percent. These road locations should be evaluated in sensitive areas to determine if they are impacting adjacent streams. Recent water quality data Most of the water quality data was collected more than ten years ago. A water-quality monitoring program should be updated and implemented.

10-204

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 10-2 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment. Data Gap Description Land slides The map prepared by DOGAMI only shows a few of the landslides in the project area. Many of the landslides in the arid portions of the study area can be mapped from aerial photographs. Field visits and LIDAR data would be required to complete landslide mapping in the forested regions. Hydrology The streams in Pine Creek watershed are impacted by water withdrawal for irrigation. Opportunities to improve irrigation efficiency and to acquire in stream water rights should be investigated. Mining The DOGAMI has a data base and GIS layer file of mine and prospect locations in the study area. The impact of this mining activity should be evaluated in the field. Gullies The gullies on map 6.3 were mapped using aerial photography. The less prominent gullies are not visible on aerial photographs. The existence of gullies in sensitive areas should be evaluated in the field.

What were the historical conditions of the aquatic–riparian areas within the watershed?

Riparian areas in Pine Valley were dominated by cottonwood galleries along the streams with either hawthorn or aspen dominant in wetter areas. Alder and cottonwood with some fir trees probably dominated the streamside vegetation in the northern portion of the valley, but on a much larger scale than it does today. Understory vegetation consisted of willows, red-osier dogwood, and herbaceous wetland species on wetter sites; and snowberry, wild cherry, serviceberry and meadow grasses on drier sites (Franklin and Dryness 1988). Aspen stands and beaver meadows were widespread (Walden N. 1876).

The Birch Creek Watershed riparian vegetation was primarily willows with some hawthorn and snowberry along moist draws as well as many herbs such as iris and geranium. The Snake River riparian vegetation consisted of scattered pine and fir with cottonwood galleries near side streams or point bars where the water table was high. Shrubs and willows grew near the river's high water mark. Early photos (Smith 1992) show vegetation similar to what is found today along free flowing sections below Hells Canyon Dam. Perennial streams in the narrow side canyons were overgrown with hawthorn, alder and snowberry as well as wild cherry and serviceberry. Some cottonwood were scattered along stream where the water table and soil would support them.

10-205

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

What are the historical changes (legacies), and land uses and resource management trends that have contributed to impacts in habitat quality, and fish presence and abundance?

The biggest change that affected the fish presence and abundance in the watershed was the construction of the Hells Canyon Dam complex which effectively halted all fish migration upstream of Hells Canyon Dam.

Historic changes in land use have altered riparian conditions in the study area. The increased use of streams by grazing domestic animals has contributed to removal of stream side vegetation, the breakdown of stream banks, and stream-bank erosion. In many streams this has led to the down cutting of streams, the formation of gullies and the invasion of invasive, non-native plants. Groundwater discharge to the down-cut streams lowers the local water table further reducing conditions favorable for riparian habitat. These changes raise water temperatures, affect water quality and reduce flow in streams.

The assessment area has several mining districts. Mining of placer deposits in streams has altered stream-channel morphology and vegetation, increased the sediment load and changed downstream patterns of sediment deposition.

Water diversion for irrigation in the Pine Valley watershed has significantly reduced flow in Pine Creek and its tributaries. A comparison of the original Government Land Office Survey (1880s), the water right decree maps (1920s), and recent aerial photographs (2010) show that some of the original stream channels in Pine Valley may have been moved or straightened.

Invasive grass species have replaced much of the native grasses on the range land. A surveyor’s report from the 1880s describes the range land as covered with bunch grass. Now the dominant grass is cheat grass.

Fire management has altered the natural fire regime. Fire suppression has led to the buildup of forest debris (fuel loads). Fires in these areas with excessive fuel loads burn with high intensity and tend to be stand replacing. These burned lands are susceptible to erosion and the invasion of invasive, non-native plants.

There are 64 miles of state highway and 957 miles of secondary roads in the assessment area. There are 1,350 stream crossings associated with these roads. Only a few of these stream crossings have been examined to determine if they are fish passage barriers or sediment sources.

10-206

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

What ongoing resource management/land use activities are contributing to continued impacts on the watershed resources?

The activities described in the historic land use section are ongoing today: mining, stream-side grazing, and water diversion.

What are important issues and key aquatic–riparian areas that need to be addressed to restore and protect watershed resources?

The important issues today are listed below.

 Lack of riparian vegetation – The estimates of shade from chapter 5 show that 73 percent of the streams have low shade (less than 40 percent cover).

 Mining activity – There is both historic and ongoing mining activity in the assessment area. There is a need for additional research regarding the effects of the mining activity, the results of mine-land reclamation, and the potential for future mining activities.

 Invasive and noxious weeds – The influx of nonnative species is an issue of concern for land management agencies, local governments, ranchers, farmers and citizens in the watershed. The PBWC will continue to work with all interested parties regarding this issue.

 Flooding in Pine Valley – Pine Creek receives inflow from 193,556 acres of watershed. This large inflow combined with land use changes has created flood risks in Pine Valley.

 Water Diversion – Stream flow is reduced in Pine Valley by diverting water for irrigation. The PBWC is completing an inventory of the points of diversion within the Pine Creek watershed. The PBWC will work to encourage irrigation efficiency and the acquisition of in-stream water rights.

 Fish Passage Barriers – The ODFW has identified 139 fish barriers in the watershed assessment area. In addition, the point of diversion inventory conducted by the PBWC has documented 28 additional fish passage barriers in the Pine Creek watershed. The location mapping of stream crossings by roads shows (map 6.2) 1,350 crossings in the study area. Little is known about the impact of these stream crossings.

 Fish Habitat – Habitat is a concern for critical species such as bull trout. Also, degraded stream habitat is a concern for other species including Chinook salmon, white sturgeon, interior redband trout, and steelhead trout.

10-207

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

 Water Quality – There are 28 streams and rivers designated as water quality limited by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The water quality issues include temperature, sedimentation and toxic substances; and may include dissolved oxygen.

 Landslides and Debris Flows – The potential for landslides is an ongoing concern in the watershed. There are abundant landslides in the southern foothills portion of the study area due to the highly erosive nature of the unconsolidated lake sediments. The Snake River side canyons are capable of producing large debris flows due to flash floods. There are several active landslides in the Pine Creek drainage that discharge sediment directly into streams.

 Road impacts – The analysis of roads within the assessment area found 308 miles of road located within 200 feet of a stream and an 11.4 mile subset of these roads are also located on land with slopes of 50% or greater.

The key aquatic areas identified in the study area are listed below.

 Pine Creek Drainage – The Pine Creek watershed contains bull trout habitat.

 Elk Creek Drainage – The Elk Creek watershed contains bull trout habitat.

References

Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness, 1988, Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, 452 p.

Smith, Sybly, 1992, Pine Valley Vignettes, Maverick Publications Inc, Bend OR

Walden, N. 1876. Early cadastral survey maps, T8S R46E, electronic copy at http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php

10-208

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Chapter 11 Monitoring Plan

Introduction

The assessment team identified data gaps during the assessment process. As part of the PBWC’s mission to promote, retain, restore and enhance the health of our watersheds, filling these data gaps is critical to an effective plan for the basin. The goal of the council and this monitoring plan is to work collaboratively with stakeholders, including local landowners, businesses, federal and state agencies, and other interest groups throughout the basin to fill these gaps.

The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (WPN 1999) details specific components essential to the development of a successful monitoring plan. Identifying the type of monitoring activities that will be required is the first step. The manual describes three main categories of monitoring:

1. The evaluation of the existing condition of a resource (optimal for filling data gaps where little or no back-round data is available).

2. Identify cause-and-effect relationships (after appropriate hypotheses have been considered).

3. Determine trends in water quality or habitat conditions in response to specific actions (after project implementation).

In many chapters of this assessment, the data gaps that arise stem from a lack of baseline data. This monitoring plan will address all of the data gaps listed in table 11-1 that are fiscally possible and that can be done in a timely manner.

Filling the Data Gaps

The data gaps that have been highlighted by this assessment span a range of issues and cross over many different disciplines. With this in mind, the monitoring plan will incorporate a multifaceted strategic attack to address these issues. A multi-agency approach and data mining will lead to a better understanding of the assessment area. A compilation of existing data into a single data base will allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the basin. This assessment has also indicated that data are insufficient or simply have not been collected to address critical watershed questions. The PBWC has been working with funders, stakeholders, volunteers, and agencies to design studies throughout the basin to address these issues.

11-209

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 11-1 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment. Assessment Data Gap Description and Suggested Solutions Chapter 2. Historic location of the channel Data was not readily available to map the History in the Birch Creek drainage historic channel. Possible data sources include BLM or USGS maps.

2. The cause of the channel Little is known about the cause of the channel History change since 1872 in the Pine changes that have accrued throughout the Pine Valley Creeks Valley drainage. Possible data sources are the Baker County land records, local bank records, and historic diaries. 3. Field verification of low Stream reaches within the assessment area Channel gradient reaches outside of Pine outside of Pine Valley were not field verified. Habitat Valley Field visits would improve mapping confidence. Type 4. Inaccuracies in the National The smaller tributaries in many of the HUC 6 Hydrology Hydrologic Data Set of the watershed are not mapped or are shown in the mapped stream network wrong location. These can be mapped with aerial photography using GIS. 4. An accurate GIS data layer for Mapping data is limited on some ephemeral Hydrology the natural and manmade intermittent and perennial streams as well as hydrography manmade roads, ditches, canals, and levees. Possible data sources are the Baker County Road Department, the Oregon Department of Transportation, BLM and USFS. 4. Need to increase the number of Gaging stations throughout the assessment area Hydrology gaging stations throughout the are limited. This makes it very difficult to assessment area and validate validate both monthly stream flow means and stream flow modeling rain on snow models. Need to work with ODEQ, OWRD and IPC to compile data and address non gauged sites. 4. Consumptive water use Need a complete survey of all the points of Hydrology throughout the Assessment area diversion in the assessment area. This information can identify areas where water can be conserved, and opportunities found to apply for instream water rights. 5. Noxious weeds Noxious weed species occur on limited acreage Riparian in Pine Valley. Field visits could target these and areas for eradication. Wetlands

11-210

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 11-1 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment. Assessment Data Gap Description and Suggested Solutions Chapter 5. Poor understanding of Historical data on riparian habitat in very steep Riparian vegetation in riparian zones of headwater streams in the more arid portion of and very steep headwater (VH) the assessment area could naturally be limited Wetlands CHT’s in arid regions and further investigation is needed. 5. Riparian restoration Further investigation is needed, coupled with Riparian opportunities on private land in landowner collaborations to understand the and Pine Valley feasibility of wetland restoration. Wetlands 6. Mining The DOGAMI has a data base and GIS layer Sediment file of mine and prospect locations in the study Sources area. The impact of this mining activity should be evaluated in the field. 6. Inaccuracies in the road Recent aerial photographs show roads that are Sediment network data from the BLM not mapped or are not correctly located. These Sources can be mapped with aerial photography using GIS. 6. Road / stream interactions The analyst identified 308 miles of road within Sediment 200 feet of a stream and a subset of 11.4 miles Sources of road located on side slopes exceeding 50 percent. These road locations should be evaluated in sensitive areas to determine if they are impacting adjacent streams. 6. Land slides The map prepared by DOGAMI only shows a Sediment few of the landslides in the project area. Many Sources of the landslides in the arid portions of the study area can be mapped from aerial photographs. Field visits and LiDAR data would be required to complete landslide mapping in the forested regions. 6. Gullies The gullies on map 6.3 were mapped using Sediment aerial photography. The less prominent gullies Sources are not visible on aerial photographs. The existence of gullies in sensitive areas should be evaluated in the field. 8. Recent water quality data Most of the water quality data was collected Water more than ten years ago. A water-quality Quality monitoring program should be updated and implemented.

11-211

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table 11-1 Data gaps identified in the watershed assessment. Assessment Data Gap Description and Suggested Solutions Chapter 8. Monitoring pH near mining Limited data has been collected basin wide with Water sites regards to pH, particularly at locations of Quality mining-related activities.

8. Temperature monitoring Several streams within the assessment area have Water throughout the basin been listed as temperature limited, however Quality many stream have little or no data available. 8. Dissolved Oxygen monitoring There are too few data to ascertain whether DO Water basin wide levels meet ODEQ standards or not. Quality 8. Long term water quality data Data have been collected throughout the Water sets for trend monitoring assessment area however, the majority of this Quality data has been sporadic and for limited durations. 9. Fish Passage Barriers due to The analyst using aerial photographs and BLM Fish and stream crossings road data mapped 1,350 stream crossings by Fish Habitat roads. The stream crossings in sensitive areas should be evaluated in the field to determine if they represent fish barriers. 9. Fish Passage Barriers due to The PBWC is conducting a study to map the Fish and water diversion structures points of diversion in the Pine Creek watershed. Fish Habitat This study includes determining if the structures are fish passage barriers. 9. Density of bull trout and Data are very limited on how remnant Fish and redband trout populations of bull trout are doing. Also Fish Habitat densities of redband trout are poorly understood. 9. Lack of detail on fish presence The Streamnet data on fish presence focus on a Fish and and distribution of nonnative few key species. The data base does not provide Fish Habitat brook trout in the GIS data base any information on fish presence and use for from Streamnet. org most of the streams in the assessment area. Field work with electrofishing in the creeks would provide more fish presence detail. Historic

Through the use of aerial photographs, adjudication maps, and GIS data, channel modifications have been documented in Pine and Birch Creeks. The timing of these modifications (mostly stream straightening) and the reasons for the channel modifications are poorly understood. Reviews of the historic records available were insufficient to shed light on the timing and purpose of the channel modifications. Future work will be required to better understand these

11-212

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment processes and their effects. More research will need to be conducted using BLM and USGS maps as well as land records and historic diaries to address these gaps. This may be conducted prior to the next assessment of the watershed.

Channel Habitat Type

Time and access have limited the amount of field verification that could be conducted over the 369,983 acre watershed for this assessment. Field verification was sufficient in Pine Creek to map low gradient reaches with confidence. Lower gradient reaches outside the Pine Valley, such as areas in Birch Creek, were not visited to verify the CHT. This assessment has indicated that the low-gradient reaches in the Pine Valley should rank the highest on a prioritization list for restoration in the Brownlee Assessment Area; however, the Birch creek drainage also has reaches that would fit into a high category for restoration. The PBWC has conducted stream surveys over almost all stream miles in the Pine Creek Drainage while identifying the points of diversions in the basin. During this field investigation, low gradient reaches were evaluated to see if they met properly functioning condition (PFC) following Prichard et al.1993 protocols. Low gradient reaches identified in this assessment in the Birch and Benson Creek Drainages need to have similar surveys conducted in the future to identify potential restoration sites. Very limited data for the Upper Birch and Benson Creek areas are available, providing an excellent opportunity for the PBWC to partner with stakeholders, ODFW and IPC to fill in the data gaps.

Hydrology

Several gaps in the data set were identified in the hydrology chapter of this assessment. Mapping and GIS layer inaccuracies or omissions were found to be common throughout the data set for ephemeral and intermittent streams. This information is critical to determining road and stream interactions and to developing an accurate sediment delivery model. The most accurate way to map these smaller drainages would be to have the region flown using LiDAR technology and then creating a GIS overlay. This method is cost prohibitive for many small basins. Other possible data sources could be the BLM, USFS, and Baker County Road Department, which might provide higher resolutions maps and more detailed GIS data. In addition, a more intensive examination of aerial photographs combined with GIS data layers could be used to better document these streams.

Throughout the assessment area, gauging station data is very limited. This information is critical to understanding and modeling stream flow over the course of the year and understanding rain on snow events in the basin. In recent years, this gap in the data has been at the forefront of concern for many agencies, stakeholders, and the PBWC. IPC has established four new gauging stations in the Pine Creek Drainage, with an additional site to be established in the near future. The PBWC plans to work collaboratively with IPC to compile these data into a single data base as

11-213

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment part of a basin-wide water quality monitoring effort. These data can then be used to understand the hydrologic limitations as well as better understand the contributions of rain on snow events during peak-flow events.

Consumptive water use throughout the assessment area is poorly understood. Over time, many irrigation points of diversions (POD’s) have been moved, changed, or abandoned. The location of these PODs and the current state of their use is an important step in understanding how water is moving through the system and where potential water conservation efforts would be most effective. During the summer field season of 2012, the PBWC, working with IPC, OWEB and OWRD, conducted a survey of the entire Pine Creek drainage. This project consisted of walking the majority of stream miles in the basin from the headwaters to the point where Pine Creek drains into the Snake River. All POD’s were inventoried by collecting a GPS location, state of current use, and additional data on the type of diversions. These data were then compiled into a GIS database. These data will allow the Water Resources Department to keep track of POD’s, eliminate diversions that are no longer in use from the record, and aid in upgrades to diversions that are not currently in compliance with regulations. These data also allow the PBWC and IPC to examine the basin and prioritize conservation efforts. Additional efforts over the entire assessment area would greatly aid in efforts to return instream flow to the system. Efforts are currently in place to extend this project into other basins.

Riparian and Wetlands

Invasive non-native species of plants have been identified on small acreages in the Pine Creek Drainage. Invasive non-native species are assumed to occur throughout the assessment area in places that have not yet been documented. Invasive species will continue to be problematic without an intensive eradication program, in particular on sites with degraded habitat. The PBWC is currently engaged in an active outreach program with the general public. Invasive species eradication will also require a concerted effort from all stakeholders, agencies and the Baker County Weed Department. The Baker County Weed Plan (Baker County 2002) relies heavily on the reporting of the occurrence of invasive plants. This will require proper identification and reporting of sites where they occur. All groups conducting field work of any kind should be alert for areas that may require treatment. Efforts also need to be taken to reduce the potential for non-native species to become established by restoring the stream side vegetation to a more natural vegetative state in degraded areas.

Riparian habitat across the assessment area has decreased from historic levels, increasing the direct solar radiation and decreasing bank stability as well as nutrient filtering and processing (Yeakley et al. 1998). Currently riparian fencing through volunteer or other programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (OWEB 2010) is limited to only a few locations throughout the assessment area. Instream restoration, such as the placement of large

11-214

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment wood structures, is often not enough to restore the proper function to a stream network. Stream restoration should be approached on a watershed scale that includes the bed, banks, and uplands (Kauffman et al. 1997). Riparian condition was field evaluated during the POD survey conducted by the PBWC. Degraded riparian habitat was documented and areas that would benefit from fencing noted. Moving forward, the PBWC needs to work with IPC and the SWCDs to find funding and meet with willing landowners to establish riparian enhancement projects. In addition, field surveys need to be conducted over the rest of the assessment area outside of the Pine Creek Drainage to identify other riparian enhancement opportunities.

The historic vegetation patterns in steep valleys (SV) and very steep headwaters (VH) of more arid regions of the assessment area are poorly documented and understood. Currently SV and VH channel habitat types in the arid region of the assessment area have minimal vegetation. Whether or not this is a natural condition is unclear. More intensive research is needed to better understand natural vegetation patterns in these regions of the assessment area. Historical documents may give an indication of the streamside vegetation patterns. In addition, test plots could be established that are fenced and planted with potential tree and shrub species to better understand the vegetation communities that develop without grazing pressure.

Sediment Sources

DOGAMI has mapped 201 past or present mining and prospecting operations throughout the assessment area. The majority of these sites have not been inventoried and little is known about how the mines are impacting the streams hydraulically. Currently the PBWC is establishing a volunteer based water quality monitoring program that may detect some spikes in turbidity and heavy metals if present. A detailed field investigation of these mine sites should be conducted in the future to model sediment delivery and channel modifications that may have taken place.

The analyst compared mapped roads to recent aerial photographs and found many discrepancies on BLM and USFS lands. Some roads were incorrectly located and other roads identified on air photographs were not mapped at all. To gain a better understanding of the road and stream interactions, these roads should be corrected. Data could be compiled from aerial photographs and corrected using GIS and field visits.

Critical questions in the Manual ask that the assessment define the number of road miles that occur within 200 feet of the stream network and the number of stream miles within 200 feet of the stream with hill slopes greater than 50%. Using GIS, 308 miles of stream were within 200 feet of the stream and 11.4 miles had slopes greater than 50%. These are sites where sediment delivery to the stream is likely to occur. With the current data available, the stability and delivery of sediment to the streams from these sites is unclear. The PBWC is hoping to secure funding in the future to conduct a forest road hazard inventory (Oregon Department of

11-215

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Forestry 2000) of the stream and road interactions on slopes greater than 50% as well as at sites with sensitive stream habitats described in the channel habitat types section (chapter 3).

Data for both landslides and gully formation throughout the assessment area are incomplete. DOGAMI only mapped 46 landslides over the assessment area. The use of aerial photographs detected gully formations on another 32 stream networks. These numbers are both considered to be very low. Proper mapping of landslides and gully formation is critical to modeling sediment loads and flow through the system. A basin-wide LiDAR map could greatly aid in the process of mapping landslides, particularly in areas of the basin that are heavily forested. Field visits should be conducted on all stream reaches deemed sensitive to document gully formation and landslides. With a proper inventory, BMP’s can be generated to reduce the delivery of sediment to the stream network.

Water Quality

Water quality data throughout the assessment area is limited, sporadic, and primarily focused in headwater streams on public property. The assessment revealed gaps in the available data that are needed to identify specific water quality issues. There is a lack of recent data in response reaches on private land throughout the assessment area. DOGAMI indentified 201 past and present mining and prospecting operations in the assessment area and to date there is limited data to indicate the impacts of these land use practices on stream pH. To date, several streams in the assessment area have been listed as water quality impaired by ODEQ for temperature issues; however, limited sites and data make it difficult to detect temperature trends in the basin. Over the entire assessment area, dissolved oxygen data collected to date have been insufficient to determine if the DO water quality standard is met. Over all, the data set for all water quality measurements is too limited and sporadic to understand trends over time for the entire assessment area.

The limited data that is available across the basin show signs of water quality improvements over time; however, this evidence is only anecdotal given the brevity of the data sets and limited distribution of sites throughout the basin. The PBWC, through previously awarded grants and the potential for future grants, plans to establish thirteen sites across the basin with the possibility of eight more sites to be monitored by local high schools. The goal is to monitor all sites for three years and select from that data set fewer sites that will be monitored for ten years to generate long term data sets. If water quality issues arise during this time period a more intensive strategy will be taken. This will consist of several stations to be established in the stream system, helping to pinpoint the source of the issue.

Data collection will be done in the field by volunteers led by the Monitoring Coordinator. Temperature will be the only data collected at each site continuously. During the sampling

11-216

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment season, starting around March, volunteers will visit and collect data once a month. This data collection will consist of dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity collected with a YSI multisensory probe (http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/docs/EquipmentHandout.pdf). In addition, turbidity samples will be collected. During each field visit, pictures will be taken of the upstream and downstream reaches to track flow when gauges are not available and to track riparian condition through time. The data collected by volunteers will undergo a strict quality assurance and quality control protocol established in the PBWC Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). After the data is approved it will be submitted to the ODEQ Laboratory Analytical Storage and Retrieval (LASAR) data base for data quality ranking. The data will be stored in an Access data base at the PBWC and will be released once a year in the State of the Watershed Report. In addition, the PBWC will create a data base that will house all of the water quality data that is collected in the assessment area, including data collected by the PBWC, ODEQ, USFS, BLM and other stakeholders in the basin.

Fish and Fish Habitat

The assessment area currently contains ESA listed bull trout and redband trout, which is a species of concern. Several data gaps have been identified. Only limited data was available at the time of this report regarding barriers to fish migration caused by stream crossings and water diversions. Distribution and density data for redband and bull trout throughout the assessment area was very limited. Data was also limited on introduced brook trout with regards to density, distribution, degrees of competition between different species for resources, and cross breeding with redband and bull trout.

ODFW has conducted some stream surveys to identify barriers to fish migration over the assessment area. This included natural and manmade barriers but is only a partial list of barriers. The PBWC conducted POD surveys of all the water diversion structures in the Pine Creek Watershed and evaluated all diversion structures for fish passage for all life history stages of both redband and bull trout. If the structure allowed adult fish passage in the upstream direction but not juvenile fish, the structure was called a partial barrier. If the structure was not capable of allowing upstream passage, then the structure was deemed a full barrier. Similar surveys still need to be conducted outside of the Pine Creek Drainage to examine diversion structures for potential fish passage issues. This assessment has also identified 1,350 streams crossings, including fords, culverts, and bridges. Data was available from the ODFW data base on 106 stream culverts. For the assessment, data was available for an additional five culverts from the USFS data base. The PBWC is looking to secure funding to complete an inventory of all stream crossings in the assessment area. This would establish a data base that incorporates all data that have been collected by the USFS, BLM, and ODFW. Crossings that have not been inventoried

11-217

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment would be surveyed using ODFW protocols. In addition, LiDAR data could be used to identify areas in the basin where stream gradient is too steep to allow fish passage.

Very little is known about how remnant populations of bull trout in the Pine Creek Basin are doing. Distribution maps have been complied using the available data, much of which is outdated and anecdotal in nature. Even less is known about these population densities. There is no data available that attempts to explain population trends over time or project future trends. Currently IPC has been running an outmigrant trap on Clear Creek, but the catch rate is too low to attempt population estimates of redband and brook trout. To date, the trap has not captured a bull trout. Increased interest from outside groups has spurred the Salvelinus confluensis Curiosity Society to meet in Baker City in the summer of 2013. Participants will electrofish critical bull trout habitat streams to establish bull trout distribution in areas outside the assessment area. The PBWC would like to partner with ODFW in the future to conduct more intensive electrofishing and snorkel surveys to better understand bull trout distribution, densities, and population trends over time.

More data are available for the distribution of redband trout throughout the assessment area, but data are limited for both densities and population trends overtime. The PBWC would like to partner with ODFW in the future to conduct more intensive electrofishing and snorkel surveys to better understand redband trout distribution, densities, and population trends over time.

Brook trout have been established in all of the high mountain lakes in the Pine Creek drainage and are assumed to be found in all of the stream systems with remnant populations of bull trout. The interactions between these two species are not well understood in the Pine Creek drainage. The PBWC would like to secure funding in the future to support graduate research into the effects on non-native brook trout on remnant bull trout populations.

Conclusions

The Brownlee Watershed Assessment has described the data gaps that limit our understanding of the current condition of the watershed and hamper the ability to prioritize restoration efforts. A comprehensive approach to filling these gaps must be taken. This requires a prioritization system to tackle the gaps in the data that can produce results in both a timely and economical manner. The Channel Habitat Type section (chapter 3) identifies 94 miles of stream habitat as being sensitive to channel change and another 334.4 miles with moderate sensitivity. These are the portions of the stream network where stream restoration efforts tend to be most beneficial. A comprehensive investigation that analyzes low gradient reaches throughout the assessment area needs to be conducted. Currently the PBWC has inventoried all stream reaches classified as sensitive or moderately sensitive to change in the Pine Creek drainage and is working with stakeholders, agencies, and interested groups to develop a comprehensive restoration plan. This

11-218

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment leaves 12.5 miles of sensitive and 143.8 miles of moderately sensitive stream habitat outside of the Pine Creek Watershed needing field investigations to establish current condition and begin to develop a comprehensive restoration plan. Field investigations should include riparian condition, instream habitat conditions, associated road condition, landslides and gully formation, fish presence, and barriers to fish migration. These data combined with the water quality monitoring data to be collected starting in 2013 will go a long way to addressing the data gaps illustrated in this assessment.

Planned Actions

 Continue to compile gauging station data.  Continue with POD surveys throughout the assessment area.  Establish a basin-wide water quality monitoring program.  Create a database to house all water quality data collected in the assessment area.

Future Needs

 Survey all sensitive and moderately sensitive habitat.  Increased outreached to eradicate non-native vegetative species.  Field verification of mine sites.  Inventory all roads within 200 feet of streams.  LiDAR to be flown over the basin to better understand historic channels and channel modification, to better map landslides and gully formation, and to identify gradient barriers to fish migration.  Develop a strategic plan to better understand fish population distribution, density and trends.

11-219

PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

References

Baker County, 2002, Noxious Weed Plan, available online: http://www.bakercounty.org/weed/Weeds.html

Kauffman, J.B., Beschta, R.L., Otting, N. & Lytjen, D., 1997, An Ecological Perspective of Riparian and Stream Restoration in the Western United States, Fisheries, 22, 12–24.

Oregon Department of Forestry, 2000, Forest Engineering Roads Manual, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Pages/state_forests/roadsmanual.aspx

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 2010, Oregon’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 2010 Annual Accomplishment Report, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/crep.aspx

Prichard, D. H. Barrett, J. Cragney, R. Clark J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, P. Hansen, B. Mitchell, and D. Tippy,1993, Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition, TR 1737-9, Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737, Service Center, Co.

Watershed Professional Network, 1999, Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, available online: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/docs/pubs/or_wsassess_manuals.aspx

Yeakley, J. A., W. T. Swank, L. W. Swift, G. M. Hornberger, and H. H. Shugart, 1998, Soil Moisture Gradients and Controls on a Southern Appalachian Hillslope from Drought through Recharge in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci 2:41–49.

11-220

Appendix 1.1 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 1.1

The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual focuses issue identification on two resources; fish- related habitat and water quality. The manual relates issues to land use category and state and federal laws related to water quality and fish habitat management. The focus is on stream channels and riparian areas.

The Powder Basin Watershed Council (PBWC) believes the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) approach to watershed issue identification is too narrow, for three reasons:

(1) Water surfaces and riparian areas represent less than 10% of the assessment area.

(2) Many watershed health issues in the other 90%+ of the assessment area…the uplands…may have little or no direct effect on fish habitat and water quality.

(3) To understand watershed condition, one must evaluate uplands separately from streams and riparian areas, then integrate the effects uplands may have on streams and riparian areas.

Therefore, this assessment was designed to present a broader scope of watershed-related issues. See the Executive Summary for a discussion of all the issue statements. The information in the BLSB assessment may not substantiate some issue statements or there may be insufficient information to address the issue. Some issue statements may be beyond the scope of this assessment.

Table A-1 below, organizes the issues in the BLSB Assessment Area issues into four major categories: Upland, Aquatic, Economic and Data. Floodplain, riparian area and wetland issues are included with uplands, because they are not in stream. Streams, dams, canals and reservoirs are included in the aquatic category. The table is further divided into issues specific to Pine Creek Watershed and issues with the larger area associated with the Snake River reservoirs. The issues are presented as statements of fact without judgment or assignment of responsibility.

X’s are placed in 3 columns to the left of each issue statement to show the major watershed resource area(s) to which the issue applies.

 Uplands

 Floodplains, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands,

 Streams, Dams and Reservoirs.

221

Appendix 1.1 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

X’s are placed in 5 columns to the right of each issue statement to show the Primary Issue Category to which the statement applies.

 Water Availability and Hydrologic Function

 Road-Water Interactions

 Sedimentation and Erosion

 Changes in Plant and Animal Communities

 Land Use.

A summary of Forestland and Rangeland Issues is provided below the table.

222

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 1.2

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

Pine Creek Watershed x x The accelerated sheet, rill and gully erosion in subalpine grasslands of Pine Creek x x x drainage is associated with low ground cover x x Poorly-vegetated, rocky, reclaimed mined lands along Pine Creek between Carson x x and Cornucopia could contribute sediment to Pine Creek x x x Long-term maintenance need for ¾-mile long dike along Pine Creek across from x x x Tunnel Creek to prevent Pine Creek from entering the mine pit and developing a headcut and increasing channel incision x x x Wildfires in Upper Pine Creek, and the Foster Gulch Fire in lower Pine Creek and x x Snake River tributaries have watershed impacts.

223

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

x x Periodic flash floods & landslide generated debris flows from Boulder Creek x x x deliver of excessive sediment to Pine Creek/Pine Valley channel, floodplain and irrigation diversions.

x x Excessive sediment deposition, channel migration, streambank erosion, and x x periodic high snowmelt runoff damage private property along Pine Creek in Pine Valley and North Pine Creek.

x x There is potential for Pine Creek to recapture McMullen Slough as its main x x x channel and floodplain, resulting in loss of fairgrounds, homes & roads in the City of Halfway

x x There is potential for Pine Creek to erode the City of Halfway Sewage Lagoon x x x x dike

x x There is high annual sediment accumulation under and upstream of the State x x x Highway 414 bridge over Pine Creek

224

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

x x The raised section of State Highway 414 from Pine Creek to Highway 86 has x x altered floodplain function.

x x There is a long-term maintenance need for instream check dams on National Forest Land: e.g. those in Meadow Creek

x x Lake Fork Creek channel was scoured out by the failure of Fish Lake Reservoir x x Dam in 1923 damaging fish habitat and riparian function. x x x A new multi-purpose water storage project proposed to be located East Pine Creek x x x x has potential environmental benefits and impacts to bull trout habitat, downstream riparian areas, and homes.

x x Threatened and endangered fish habitat (bull trout, Chinook salmon, steelhead) in x x x Pine Creek is degraded.

x There are Water Quality Limited Streams (303d list) – summer water temperature x x x for salmonids and bull trout exceeds state standards in many streams

225

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

Snake River Reservoirs x x High level of woody fuels within and around communities (Cornucopia, x Homestead), and some homes and recreational residences could lead to wildfires that damage or destroy homes.

x Expansion of stream channel network by gullies in subalpine grasslands of Pine x x x Creek and low-elevation sagebrush-grass rangelands (esp. south of Huntington), affects quantity, duration and timing of storm runoff. x x Grazing/browsing animals impacts the establishment, growth and reproduction of x x riparian shrubs, cottonwood and aspen in many areas: e.g. Mud Lake cottonwood- riparian exclosure, Morgan Creek and Benson Creek. x x Invasive and noxious plants impacts native riparian and upland plant communities, x x x x wildfire intensity and recurrence interval, soils and hydrology, land use, wildlife, and other factors that affect watershed condition: e.g. loss of native sagebrush- grass plant communities (sage grouse habitat) in southern part of assessment area

226

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land x x Overstocked forestland impact insect and disease populations, tree mortality, x x wildfire potential, and potential burned-area impacts x x x Slump earthflows and debris avalanches have current and potential impacts on x uplands, floodplains and streams

x Wolves have potential indirect effects on riparian areas (and humans) through x ungulate prey harassment and mortality x x x The proposed Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan on has x x x x potential impacts on watershed condition and communities x x Past and current land and resource management practices have impacts on non- x x aquatic Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation First Food sites and species.

227

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

x x Shoreline erosion and fluctuation of water surface elevation of Brownlee Reservoir x x has the potential to cause landslides into the reservoir resulting in reservoir-wide dam-topping tsunamis, infrastructure damage, loss of human life, reduction in storage capacity, and additional shoreline erosion x x x Brownlee Reservoir shoreline erosion has impacts on the Brownlee Reservoir x x Road and shoreline facilities

x x Natural Mercury Pollution: Mercury-bearing rocks along Brownlee Reservoir are x reported to contribute liquid mercury to Brownlee Reservoir via streams and to be present in aspen leaves in the Connor Creek drainage

x There are Water Quality Limited Streams (303d list) – mercury in Brownlee x Reservoir and Hells Canyon Reservoir

x x Periodic floods from intense summer rainfall and winter rain-on-snow events x x damage stream channels.

228

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

x x Water withdrawals, water storage, and release of stored water has modified stream x x flow regimes

x There is potential for new aquatic invasive species to enter the subbasin and x severely impact aquatic habitat and species, and hydroelectric and irrigation infrastructure

x x During the annual summer draw down of the reservoir, invasive plants, including x x noxious weeds, grow and spread on exposed sediments of Brownlee Reservoir x x x There is accelerated stream bank erosion, especially in areas with x entrenched/gullied stream channels

x x There is accelerated stream channel erosion in areas with headcuts and gullies, and x x below culverts and bridges

x Stream channels below dams are starved of sediment. x x

x x The potential effects of steelhead and salmon reintroduction are unknown. x x

229

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land x x Expansion of the ephemeral stream network by roadside ditches, road surface ruts, x x x livestock trails, and upland gullies and rills increases water and sediment delivery to streams

x x Many culverts and bridges are improperly sized and placed x x x

x Infrequent culvert maintenance schedule has caused partial to complete plugging x x and overtopping of culverts

x Fish Passage Barriers in streams have been created by dams, irrigation diversions, x x x x ditches and canals, culverts, and natural barriers such as porous instream sediment deposits.

x x Beaver-trapping has impacts on plants and animals in streams, riparian areas, and x x x floodplains, and on irrigation diversions and ditches

x Impacts of past and current land and resource management practices on aquatic x x First Food sites and species of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

230

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A1. 1 Issues identified by the PBWC.

Issues (below) / Primary Issue Groups (right)

Water Interactions Water

Use Use

plands

U Areas, Riparian Floodplains, Wetlands Reservoirs Dams, Streams, & Water Availability Function Hydrologic Road & Erosion Sedimentation & Animal in Plant Changes Communities Land

Economics

x x Excessive sediment deposition, channel migration, streambank erosion, and x x periodic high snowmelt runoff damage private property along Pine Creek in Pine Valley and North Pine Creek. x x x Weed control, erosion control on native surface roads, culvert maintenance and x x x replacement, fish screens, water measurement devices, and collection and summary of existing and new watershed condition data has a high cost.

Data x x x Most existing watershed condition information is in hardcopy, unsummarized x x x format, and data points are not in GIS. x x x Most information needed for a good watershed condition evaluation has not been x x x x x collected or has not been updated following floods and fires.

231

Appendix 1.2 PBWC’s Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Forestland Issues:

 Introduction and spread of invasive and noxious weeds along forest roads and logging trails.

 Change in wildfire potential due to fuel buildup in unmanaged stands.

 Hazardous fuel buildup in and around communities: Cornucopia and Homestead.

 Potential for insect and disease outbreaks.

 Wallowa-Whitman N.F. Travel Management Plan – reduced access due to proposed road closures.

 Impacts of forest roads on hydrology, soils, streams, fish and wildlife.

Rangeland Issues:

 Spread of well-established and new invasive and noxious plant species.

 Permanently altered climax plant communities in low elevation rangelands.

 Potential for palatable grasses to be replaced by an unpalatable grass (Medusahead rye).

 Potential impacts of an unpalatable grass (Medusahead rye) on rodents and other grazers.

 Low ground cover and accelerated erosion in subalpine grasslands.

 Many gullies and headcuts in low elevation and subalpine rangelands.

 Increased wildfire potential in low elevation rangelands.

 Severely reduced riparian plant communities along many streams.

 Reduction of rangeland soil productivity in valleys due to gullies lowering of the groundwater table.

232

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 4.1

Table A4. 1 HUC7 Watershed codes and names, cross-referenced to HUC6s.

HUC 7 HUC 7 HUC 7 Name HUC 6 Code HUC 6 Name Composite Code or Pure

01C SR - Darrows Islands C 17050201-0201 Road Gulch – Snake River 01D SR - Road Gulch C 17050201-0201 Road Gulch – Snake River 02A Upper Birch Creek pure 17050201-0202 Upper Birch Creek 02B West Fork Birth Creek pure 17050201-0202 Upper Birch Creek 02C Whiskey Gulch pure 17050201-0202 Upper Birch Creek 02D East Fork Birch Creek pure 17050201-0202 Upper Birch Creek 02E BirchCr - Kivett Reservoirs C 17050201-0202 Upper Birch Creek 02F BirchCr - Grove Gulch C 17050201-0202 Upper Birch Creek 03A Upper Love Reservoir Creek pure 17050201-0203 Love Reservoir Creek 03B Redsull Well Creek pure 17050201-0203 Love Reservoir Creek 03C Pine Tree Ridge Creek pure 17050201-0203 Love Reservoir Creek 03D Lower Love Reservoir Creek C 17050201-0203 Love Reservoir Creek 04A BirchCr - Cottonwood Gulch C 17050201-0204 Lower Birch Creek 04B Birch Creek - Brosman Mtn C 17050201-0204 Lower Birch Creek 04C Birch Creek - Lockett Road C 17050201-0204 Lower Birch Creek 04D Striped Mountain Creek pure 17050201-0204 Lower Birch Creek 04E Lower Birch Creek C 17050201-0204 Lower Birch Creek 05A Upper Benson Creek pure 17050201-0205 Benson Creek 05B Chicken Creek pure 17050201-0205 Benson Creek 05C Lower Benson Creek C 17050201-0205 Benson Creek 06A SR - Oregon Trail C 17050201-0206 Grouse Creek – Snake River 06B SR - Farewell Bend C 17050201-0206 Grouse Creek – Snake River 06D SR - Slaughterhouse Range C 17050201-0206 Grouse Creek – Snake River 07A SR - Brush Spring C 17050201-0301 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 07B SR - Chukar Spring C 17050201-0301 Ryan Gulch – Snake River 08A SR - Bay Horse Creek C 17050201-0303 Morgan Creek – Snake River 08B Morgan Creek pure 17050201-0303 Morgan Creek – Snake River 08C Hibbard Creek pure 17050201-0303 Morgan Creek – Snake River 08D Fox Creek pure 17050201-0303 Morgan Creek – Snake River 08F Connor Creek pure 17050201-0303 Morgan Creek – Snake River 08G SR - Bear Creek C 17050201-0303 Morgan Creek – Snake River 09F SR - Douglas Creek C 17050201-0304 Dennett Creek – Snake River 10B SR - Big Deacon Creek C 17050201-0306 Raft Creek – Snake River 10C Soda Creek pure 17050201-0306 Raft Creek – Snake River

233

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 1 HUC7 Watershed codes and names, cross-referenced to HUC6s.

HUC 7 HUC 7 HUC 7 Name HUC 6 Code HUC 6 Name Composite Code or Pure

10D SR - Boxcar Gulch C 17050201-0306 Raft Creek – Snake River 10E SR - Quicksand Creek C 17050201-0306 Raft Creek – Snake River 10G SR - Sturgill Point C 17050201-0306 Raft Creek – Snake River 11A SR - Coyote Flat C 17050201-0307 Jackson Gulch – Snake River 11C SR – Andrew Spring C 17050201-0307 Jackson Gulch – Snake River 12A SR - Tarter Gulch C 17050201-0401 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 12C SR - Cave Creek C 17050201-0401 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 12E SR - Brownlee Dam C 17050201-0401 Cottonwood Creek – Snake River 13C SR - Road Canyon C 17050201-0403 Dukes Creek – Snake River 14A SR - Black Canyon C 17050201-0701 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 14B SR - Eagle Island Creek C 17050201-0701 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 14C SR - Winter Canyon C 17050201-0701 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 14D SR - Sheep Mountain C 17050201-0701 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 14F SR - Cottonwood Creek C 17050201-0701 Oxbow Dam – Snake River 15A SR - Oxbow C 17050201-0703 Herman Creek – Snake River 15B SR - Hunsaker Creek C 17050201-0703 Herman Creek – Snake River 15C SR - Homestead Creek C 17050201-0703 Herman Creek – Snake River 15D Herman Creek pure 17050201-0703 Herman Creek – Snake River 15E SR - Hale Creek C 17050201-0703 Herman Creek – Snake River 15F SR - Nelson Creek C 17050201-0703 Herman Creek – Snake River 16A Upper McGraw Creek pure 17050201-0704 McGraw Creek – Snake River 16B Lower McGraw Creek C 17050201-0704 McGraw Creek – Snake River 16C Spring Creek pure 17050201-0704 McGraw Creek – Snake River 16E SR - Leep Creek C 17050201-0704 McGraw Creek – Snake River 16H SR - Kirby Creek C 17050201-0704 McGraw Creek – Snake River 17A SR - Squaw Creek C 17050201-0705 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 17C Thirtytwo Point Creek pure 17050201-0705 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 17D Steamboat Creek pure 17050201-0705 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 17E SR – Eagle Bar C 17050201-0705 Hells Canyon Dam – Snake River 18A Upper Pine Creek pure 17050201-0601 Upper Pine Creek 18B East Fork Pine Creek pure 17050201-0601 Upper Pine Creek 18C PineCr - Jim Fisk Creek C 17050201-0601 Upper Pine Creek 18D Boulder Creek pure 17050201-0601 Upper Pine Creek 18E PineCr - Tunnel Creek C 17050201-0601 Upper Pine Creek 18F PineCr - Dixie Creek C 17050201-0601 Upper Pine Creek 19A Carson Creek pure 17050201-0602 McMullen Slough 19B Upper Lee Creek pure 17050201-0602 McMullen Slough 19C Lower Lee Creek C 17050201-0602 McMullen Slough

234

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 1 HUC7 Watershed codes and names, cross-referenced to HUC6s.

HUC 7 HUC 7 HUC 7 Name HUC 6 Code HUC 6 Name Composite Code or Pure

19D Upper Sag Creek pure 17050201-0602 McMullen Slough 19E Lower Sag Creek C 17050201-0602 McMullen Slough 19F McMullen Slough C 17050201-0602 McMullen Slough 20A Upper Clear Creek pure 17050201-0603 Clear Creek 20B Trail Creek pure 17050201-0603 Clear Creek 20C Meadow Creek pure 17050201-0603 Clear Creek 20D Middle Clear Creek C 17050201-0603 Clear Creek 20E Holbrook Creek pure 17050201-0603 Clear Creek 20F Lower Clear Creek C 17050201-0603 Clear Creek 21A Upper East Pine Creek pure 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21B Trinity Creek pure 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21C EastPineCr - Okanogan Creek C 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21D EastPineCr - Beecher Creek pure 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21E Upper Dry Creek pure 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21F West Fork Dry Creek pure 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21G Lower Dry Creek C 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 21H Lower East Pine Creek C 17050201-0605 East Pine Creek 22A Upper Crow Reservoir Creek pure 17050201-0604 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 22B Lower Crow Reservoir Creek C 17050201-0604 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 22C East Fork Deer Creek pure 17050201-0604 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 22D Upper Deer Creek pure 17050201-0604 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 22E Lower Deer Creek C 17050201-0604 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 22F Pine Creek – Pine Town Road C 17050201-0604 Deer Creek – Pine Creek 23A West Long Branch Creek pure 17050201-0606 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23B Long Branch Creek pure 17050201-0606 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23C Fourmile Creek pure 17050201-0606 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23D Upper Fish Creek pure 17050201-0606 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23E Lower Fish Creek C 17050201-0606 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 23F Pine Creek – East Long Branch C 17050201-0606 Fish Creek – Pine Creek 24A Upper North Pine Creek pure 17050201-0607 Upper North Pine Creek 24B Upper Duck Creek pure 17050201-0607 Upper North Pine Creek 24C Lower Duck Creek C 17050201-0607 Upper North Pine Creek 24D North Pine Creek - Jolly Creek C 17050201-0607 Upper North Pine Creek 25A Upper Lake Fork Creek pure 17050201-0608 Lake Fork Creek 25B Middle Lake Fork Creek C 17050201-0608 Lake Fork Creek 25C Upper Elk Creek pure 17050201-0608 Lake Fork Creek 25D Middle Elk Creek C 17050201-0608 Lake Fork Creek 25E Lower Elk Creek C 17050201-0608 Lake Fork Creek

235

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 1 HUC7 Watershed codes and names, cross-referenced to HUC6s.

HUC 7 HUC 7 HUC 7 Name HUC 6 Code HUC 6 Name Composite Code or Pure

25F Lower Lake Fork Creek C 17050201-0608 Lake Fork Creek 26A North Pine Creek – Rest Area C 17050201-0609 Lower North Pine Creek 26B Fall Creek pure 17050201-0609 Lower North Pine Creek 26C North Pine Creek - Little Fall Creek C 17050201-0609 Lower North Pine Creek 26D Little Elk Creek pure 17050201-0609 Lower North Pine Creek 26E North Pine Creek - Turnbull Creek C 17050201-0609 Lower North Pine Creek 27A Pine Creek - Bobcat Creek C 17050201-0610 Lower Pine Creek 27B McLain Gulch pure 17050201-0610 Lower Pine Creek 27C Pine Creek - Benham Creek C 17050201-0610 Lower Pine Creek 27D Pine Creek - McCarty Creek C 17050201-0610 Lower Pine Creek

236

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 2 OWRD Water Availability Basin (WAB) IDs and names by HUC7. Pour Point is located WAB ID WAB Name within this HUC7 01B 31020103 Wheel Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 01D 31020102 Road Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 04E 31020101 Birch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 05C 30920137 Benson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 07B 30920136 Ryan Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 08A 30920135 Bay Horse Creek > Snake River - at mouth 08B 30920134 Morgan Creek > Snake River - at mouth 08C 30920132 Hibbard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 08D 30920131 Fox Creek > Snake River - at mouth 08F 30920130 Connor Creek > Snake River - at mouth 08G 30920133 Bear Creek > Snake River - at mouth 09F 30920129 Douglas Creek > Snake River - at mouth 10B 30920127 Big Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 10B 30920128 Little Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 10C 30920126 Soda Creek > Snake River - at mouth 10E 30920125 Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 10E 30920124 Quicksand Creek > Snake River - at mouth 12A 30920123 Tarter Creek > Snake River - at mouth 13C 30920122 Ferry Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 13C 30920121 Road Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 14A 30920120 Black Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 14B 30920119 Eagle Island Creek > Snake River - at mouth 14F 30920118 Cottonwood Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15B 30920115 Bob Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15B 30920117 Hunsaker Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15B 30920116 Hunter Creek > Snake River- at mouth 15C 30920114 Holbrook Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15C 30920112 Homestead Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15C 30920113 Irondyke Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15D 30920111 Herman Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15E 30920109 Ashby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15E 30920110 Ballard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15F 30920108 Copper Creek > Snake River - at mouth 15F 30820110 Nelson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 16B 30820109 McGraw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 16C 30820108 Spring Creek > Snake River - at mouth 16E 30820107 Leep Creek > Snake River - at mouth 16F 30820106 Kirby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 17A 30820102 Buck Creek > Snake River - at mouth

237

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 2 OWRD Water Availability Basin (WAB) IDs and names by HUC7. Pour Point is located WAB ID WAB Name within this HUC7 17A 30820104 Doyle Creek > Snake River - at mouth 17A 30820105 Lynch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 17A 30820103 Squaw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 17C 30820101 Thirtytwo Point Creek > Snake River - at mouth 17D 30820111 Steamboat Creek > Snake River - at mouth 18E 70864 Pine Creek > Snake River - above Fuller Creek Clear Creek > Pine Creek - above unnamed 20D 72170 stream 20F 235 Clear Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - above Beecher 21D 70869 Creek 21G 30920106 Dry Creek > East Pine Creek - at mouth 21H 70870 East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 22E 30920107 Deer Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 23C 30920105 Fourmile Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 23E 30920104 Fish Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth Pine Creek > Snake River – above Long Branch 23F 70863 Creek North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - above Duck 24A 30920103 Creek 24C 72175 Duck Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 25E 70871 Elk Creek > Lake Fork Creek - at mouth Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - above Elk 25F 72179 Creek 25F 72180 Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 26B 30920102 Fall Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 26D 72182 Little Elk Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 26E 241 North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 27B 30920101 McLain Gulch > Pine Creek - at mouth 27D 72189 Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth

238

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 3 Highest annual peak flows for five gages within and near Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment Area.

Water Date Weiser Date Hells Cyn Date Pine Creek Date Powder Date Burnt River Year Gage Dam Gage Gage (cfs) River Hunting- (cfs) (cfs) Robinette ton (cfs) Gage (cfs) 1910 Mar. 03, 1910 120,000 1911 Jun. 21, 1911 67,200 1912 Jun. 15, 1912 73,800 1913 May 31, 1913 66,500 1914 Apr. 17, 1914 50,800 1915 Nov. 18, 1914 28,600 1916 Mar. 22, 1916 58,400 1917 May 28, 1917 70,400 1918 Jun. 24, 1918 62,400 1919 Apr. 05, 1919 53,800 1920 May 24, 1920 36,800 1921 May 23, 1921 83,100 1922 May 27, 1922 67,100 1923 Jun. 13, 1923 41,500 1924 Feb. 09, 1924 28,900 1925 Feb. 06, 1925 63,100 1926 Feb. 07, 1926 34,700 1927 Jun. 17, 1927 56,300 1928 May 12, 1928 62,300 1929 Apr. 15, 1929 31,300 Mar. 10, 1929 2,920 Mar. 10, 1929 383 1930 Dec. 17, 1929 21,100 Feb. 20, 1930 770 Mar. 28, 1930 226 1931 Mar. 19, 1931 19,000 May 14, 1931 1,210 Apr. 03, 1931 470 1932 Mar. 20, 1932 53,300 Mar. 19, 1932 3,550 Apr. 15, 1932 1,200 1933 Jun. 13, 1933 39,500 Jun. 15, 1933 4,180 1934 Jan. 03, 1934 20,500 Mar. 28, 1934 870 1935 Jun. 03, 1935 24,300 Apr. 16, 1935 1,610 1936 Apr. 25, 1936 60,700 Apr. 19, 1936 3,190

239

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 3 Highest annual peak flows for five gages within and near Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment Area.

Water Date Weiser Date Hells Cyn Date Pine Creek Date Powder Date Burnt River Year Gage Dam Gage Gage (cfs) River Hunting- (cfs) (cfs) Robinette ton (cfs) Gage (cfs) 1937 Apr. 16, 1937 36,900 Mar. 26, 1937 1,350 1938 May 03, 1938 67,200 May 01, 1938 3,100 1939 Mar. 26, 1939 39,500 Mar. 27, 1939 2,200 1940 Apr. 01, 1940 49,600 Mar. 31, 1940 3,120 1941 Jun. 09, 1941 28,000 May 14, 1941 2,300 1942 Jun. 01, 1942 44,300 May 27, 1942 2,820 1943 Apr. 21, 1943 69,300 Apr. 19, 1943 3,340 1944 Jun. 17, 1944 37,000 May 31, 1944 1,200 1945 Jun. 14, 1945 44,100 May 05, 1945 2,300 1946 Apr. 18, 1946 57,300 Apr. 26, 1946 2,870 1947 Jun. 11, 1947 44,600 May 08, 1947 2,230 1948 Jun. 04, 1948 48,300 May 28, 1948 5,320 1949 Mar. 19, 1949 34,300 May 17, 1949 3,620 1950 Apr. 14, 1950 40,400 Jun. 21, 1950 3,200 1951 May 17, 1951 45,900 Apr. 18, 1951 2,450 1952 Apr. 29, 1952 84,500 Apr. 28, 1952 5,080 1953 Jun. 14, 1953 56,900 Jun. 15, 1953 4,210 1954 Apr. 15, 1954 30,000 May 19, 1954 1,700 1955 Apr. 23, 1955 28,000 Jun. 12, 1955 1,870 1956 Jun. 06, 1956 56,400 May 27, 1956 5,500 1957 May 24, 1957 66,400 May 18, 1957 4,570 Feb. 26, 1957 2,190 1958 Apr. 19, 1958 43,100 Apr. 22, 1958 1,330 1959 Sep. 16, 1959 21,600 Apr. 15, 1959 329 1960 Apr. 10, 1960 31,100 1961 Feb. 01, 1961 22,200 1962 Feb. 14, 1962 33,100 Feb. 01, 1962 410 1963 Feb. 03, 1963 51,000 1964 Jun. 21, 1964 51,300 Apr. 27, 1964 243

240

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 3 Highest annual peak flows for five gages within and near Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment Area.

Water Date Weiser Date Hells Cyn Date Pine Creek Date Powder Date Burnt River Year Gage Dam Gage Gage (cfs) River Hunting- (cfs) (cfs) Robinette ton (cfs) Gage (cfs) 1965 Dec. 25, 1964 72,400 Dec. 22, 1964 2,220 1966 Mar. 09, 1966 24,200 Aug. 19, 1966 25,000 Mar. 13, 1966 323 1967 Jun. 22, 1967 33,300 Jun. 23, 1967 37,200 Jan. 29, 1967 4,040 Jan. 29, 1967 434 1968 Feb. 24, 1968 34,100 Apr. 14, 1968 35,800 Feb. 21, 1968 7,110 Feb. 23, 1968 616 1969 Apr. 07, 1969 49,300 Apr. 10, 1969 55,600 Jun. 09, 1969 2,180 Apr. 09, 1969 1,090 1970 May 26, 1970 44,700 Jan. 29, 1970 50,600 Jan. 23, 1970 6,630 May 10, 1970 724 1971 Jan. 20, 1971 64,000 Apr. 15, 1971 75,800 May 29, 1971 2,940 Apr. 10, 1971 1,750 1972 Mar. 14, 1972 63,000 Mar. 21, 1972 74,700 Mar. 13, 1972 3,040 Mar. 22, 1972 1,230 1973 Apr. 18, 1973 28,500 Jan. 07, 1973 31,600 May 25, 1973 2,290 Jan. 16, 1973 1,320 1974 Apr. 02, 1974 57,600 Apr. 21, 1974 63,300 Jan. 16, 1974 6,810 Apr. 02, 1974 1,450 1975 May 16, 1975 57,000 Apr. 30, 1975 63,200 Jun. 02, 1975 1,830 May 17, 1975 1,180 1976 Apr. 14, 1976 52,600 Apr. 23, 1976 59,200 Apr. 09, 1976 1,770 Apr. 13, 1976 814 1977 Dec. 05, 1976 21,300 Dec. 14, 1976 29,600 May 22, 1977 280 Jun. 07, 1977 235 1978 Apr. 28, 1978 45,600 May 06, 1978 44,900 Dec. 15, 1977 4,030 Apr. 28, 1978 1,880 1979 Feb. 14, 1979 36,500 Mar. 19, 1979 38,600 Mar. 16, 1979 2,270 May 07, 1979 633 1980 Jun. 06, 1980 48,000 Jun. 12, 1980 48,600 May 09, 1980 1,520 Apr. 26, 1980 66 1981 Jun. 13, 1981 39,300 Jun. 09, 1981 44,100 Feb. 16, 1981 2,850 1982 Feb. 17, 1982 69,600 Feb. 23, 1982 87,800 Feb. 22, 1982 5,240 1983 May 07, 1983 62,600 Mar. 20, 1983 66,200 May 30, 1983 2,640 1984 Apr. 20, 1984 80,000 May 08, 1984 78,400 Mar. 21, 1984 3,040 1985 Apr. 12, 1985 42,000 Apr. 10, 1985 48,400 Apr. 02, 1985 2,000 1986 Feb. 25, 1986 78,500 Feb. 28, 1986 78,600 Feb. 23, 1986 5,460 1987 Nov. 01, 1986 25,900 Feb. 14, 1987 30,200 Mar. 06, 1987 2,640 1988 Jun. 03, 1988 14,900 May 06, 1988 29,800 Jun. 01, 1988 792 1989 Mar. 12, 1989 39,000 Apr. 29, 1989 41,900 Mar. 11, 1989 2,320 1990 Jun. 02, 1990 21,400 May 09, 1990 29,600 May 29, 1990 1,280 1991 May 18, 1991 16,500 Dec. 20, 1990 29,700 May 19, 1991 1,780 1992 Feb. 22, 1992 17,100 Oct. 02, 1991 22,200 Feb. 21, 1992 1,150

241

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 3 Highest annual peak flows for five gages within and near Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin Assessment Area.

Water Date Weiser Date Hells Cyn Date Pine Creek Date Powder Date Burnt River Year Gage Dam Gage Gage (cfs) River Hunting- (cfs) (cfs) Robinette ton (cfs) Gage (cfs) 1993 Mar. 19, 1993 54,200 Apr. 05, 1993 55,400 Mar. 24, 1993 4,030 1994 Mar. 03, 1994 16,900 Oct. 04, 1993 30,900 Mar. 04, 1994 1,130 1995 Jun. 12, 1995 41,600 Jun. 13, 1995 48,800 Feb. 01, 1995 2,380 1996 Apr. 11, 1996 54,400 Apr. 24, 1996 73,400 Apr. 23, 1996 3,280 1997 Jan. 03, 1997 84,100 Jan. 02, 1997 103,000 1998 May 28, 1998 78,700 May 29, 1998 94,500 1999 Mar. 27, 1999 51,700 Mar. 27, 1999 67,800 2000 Feb. 28, 2000 33,900 May 16, 2000 37,500 2001 Oct. 13, 2000 16,000 Jan. 17, 2001 29,400 2002 Apr. 15, 2002 27,900 Apr. 19, 2002 29,200 2003 May 31, 2003 25,500 May 31, 2003 45,600 2004 May 29, 2004 19,500 Sep. 15, 2004 30,800 2005 May 20, 2005 33,600 May 20, 2005 41,600 2006 Apr. 24, 2006 67,200 Apr. 18, 2006 80,800 2007 Dec. 28, 2006 19,200 Dec. 29, 2006 23,900 2008 May 22, 2008 35,500 Jun. 06, 2008 28,500 2009 Jun. 08, 2009 34,400 Jun. 08, 2009 41,100 2010 Jun. 06, 2010 42,800 Jun. 07, 2010 54,000 2011 May 16, 2011 62,700 May 23, 2011 68,900

242

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 4 General watershed characteristics for OWRD water availability basins.

Pour Mean 2-year Mean Mean WAB Stream Mean Min. Max. Forest Point Annual 1-day Annual Annual WAB ID area Length Elev. Elev. Elev. Cover in this OWRD Water Availability Basins (WABs) Precip. Precip. Snowfall Temp (sq mi) (miles) (feet) (feet) (feet) (%) HUC7 (inches) (inches) (inches) (deg F)

01D Road Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 31020102 3.30 5.3 2598 2188 3199 12.5 -- -- e 48.0 -- 04E Birch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 31020101 69.83 84.9 3280 2133 4600 15.5 -- -- e 46.0 -- 05C Benson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920137 16.88 18.6 2856 2085 4297 13.1 0.65 24.1 50.9 0.02 07B Ryan Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 30920136 0.76 1.4 3830 2091 4966 15.7 0.74 31.1 50.1 0.1 08A Bay Horse Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920135 1.89 2.1 3819 2104 4940 17.0 0.77 34.5 49.4 0.1 08B Morgan Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920134 9.98 15.3 3814 2069 5419 16.7 0.82 34.5 48.0 2.7 08C Hibbard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920132 7.28 5.4 4107 2094 6148 19.9 0.95 44.6 46.7 32.8 08D Fox Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920131 6.81 8.1 4112 2092 6252 21.0 1.00 49.2 47.0 28.4 08F Connor Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920130 9.33 9.4 4455 2066 6260 25.2 1.13 61.8 46.1 38.2 08G Bear Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920133 1.42 2.8 3272 2101 4261 13.5 0.74 24.5 49.1 0.2 09F Douglas Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920129 1.66 2.4 3428 2100 4587 15.5 0.84 28.6 48.2 1.5 10B Big Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920127 1.46 2.0 3940 2122 5294 21.6 1.05 47.8 47.0 8.3 10B Little Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920128 1.33 1.3 3655 2116 5268 19.8 0.99 42.2 47.4 6.0 10C Soda Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920126 3.63 4.0 4109 2088 5549 24.9 1.23 57.7 46.4 15.6 10E Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920125 2.26 2.6 3972 2105 5885 20.8 1.04 44.2 46.6 4.8 10E Quicksand Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920124 2.14 3.2 3880 2093 5743 22.5 1.08 46.9 47.0 1.7 12A Tarter Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920123 2.39 4.1 3403 2077 3925 18.4 1.08 32.9 49.5 0.6 13C Ferry Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920122 1.17 1.5 3483 2093 4012 18.4 1.05 26.7 50.8 0.5 13C Road Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920121 1.73 1.7 3161 2102 3899 17.7 0.97 20.8 51.5 0.5 14A Black Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920120 1.98 3.5 3736 1833 4936 17.0 1.01 18.8 51.1 12.6 14B Eagle Island Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920119 1.24 1.6 3053 1808 4936 15.5 0.90 15.7 50.8 3.6 14F Cottonwood Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920118 0.69 1.1 2760 1857 4204 16.8 0.96 19.9 51.7 19.3 15B Bob Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920115 0.95 1.6 3243 1698 4922 18.4 1.05 30.1 50.6 10.5

243

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 4 General watershed characteristics for OWRD water availability basins.

15B Hunsaker Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920117 1.81 2.0 3409 1732 5043 18.9 1.02 31.5 49.8 24.5 15B Hunter Creek > Snake River- at mouth 30920116 1.01 1.3 3246 1714 5044 17.6 1.02 27.9 38.1 50.7 15C Holbrook Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920114 1.49 2.0 3188 1691 4936 19.1 1.09 33.6 50.1 18.0 15C Homestead Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920112 2.39 4.0 3789 1698 5284 20.4 1.12 42.8 48.5 24.2 15C Irondyke Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920113 1.11 1.9 3149 1705 4854 19.8 1.12 38.5 49.2 21.8 15D Herman Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920111 3.34 6.0 4057 1699 5458 20.1 1.06 43.6 48.5 38.5 15E Ashby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920109 0.79 1.9 3306 1730 4375 18.8 1.02 36.3 49.2 5.9 15E Ballard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920110 1.89 2.5 3612 1700 5343 20.5 1.07 41.1 48.9 16.3 15F Copper Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30920108 1.79 4.5 3920 1726 5460 20.7 1.07 43.3 48.7 41.0 15F Nelson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820110 1.91 3.0 3893 1798 5331 23.8 -- -- e 49.0 -- 16B McGraw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820109 12.42 10.6 4354 1801 6001 29.1 -- -- e 49.0 -- 16C Spring Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820108 3.12 4.4 3309 1798 5600 24.3 -- -- e 49.0 -- 16E Leep Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820107 1.07 1.9 3073 1798 5397 22.2 -- -- e 49.0 -- 16F Kirby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820106 1.09 3.2 3938 1804 5627 23.5 -- -- e 49.0 -- 17A Buck Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820102 1.24 2.2 4278 1847 5997 21.7 -- -- e 49.0 -- 17A Doyle Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820104 1.19 2.1 3963 1801 5800 23.7 -- -- e 49.0 -- 17A Lynch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820105 1.01 2.0 3844 1801 5673 23.3 -- -- e 49.0 -- 17A Squaw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820103 1.54 2.4 4642 1801 6001 23.0 -- -- e 49.0 -- 17C Thirtytwo Point Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820101 3.92 3.1 4424 1781 6197 20.6 -- -- e 49.0 -- 17D Steamboat Creek > Snake River - at mouth 30820111 4.62 e 3.0 4201 1942 6201 17.8 -- -- e 49.0 -- 18E Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Fuller Creek 70864 28.92 30.8 6276 3558 9566 51.1 1.90 273.8 38.5 56.6 20D Clear Creek > Pine Creek - abv unnam str 72170 17.94 17.6 6060 3874 7980 51.3 1.97 268.7 39.0 74.7 20F Clear Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 235 32.82 35.8 4872 2445 7980 39.0 1.67 185.5 42.3 57.9 East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Beecher 21D 70869 13.88 19.6 5278 3274 7419 40.2 1.72 175.1 41.8 79.9 Creek 21G Dry Creek > East Pine Creek - at mouth 30920106 12.95 12.6 3240 2473 4819 21.8 1.21 63.3 47.5 52.2

244

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 4 General watershed characteristics for OWRD water availability basins.

21H East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 70870 40.32 45.9 3942 2429 7419 28.3 1.39 105.3 45.4 57.2 22E Deer Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 30920107 13.25 9.5 3169 2441 3879 19.9 1.12 34.9 50.9 0.04 23C Fourmile Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 30920105 11.68 15.3 3212 2324 4902 18.1 1.06 24.8 51.8 1.06 23E Fish Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 30920104 11.69 14.5 4092 2263 7294 28.2 1.38 87.8 46.2 60.2 Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Long Branch 23F 70863 163.8 161.9 4261 2402 9566 32.3 1.48 135.0 44.6 40.7 Creek North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Duck 24A 30920103 7.31 9.1 4980 4017 5611 37.2 1.61 112.3 45.0 90.6 Creek 24C Duck Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 72175 12.74 11.6 5267 4019 6480 41.3 1.76 143.4 42.4 91.2 25E Elk Creek > Lake Fork Creek - at mouth 70871 15.22 17.3 5688 3621 7429 44.5 1.88 173.9 41.1 94.3 Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - abv Elk 25F 72179 13.31 14.0 5907 3639 7639 47.7 1.96 207.2 40.6 82.9 Creek 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 72180 30.58 33.4 5675 3188 7639 44.7 1.87 180.9 41.2 88.3 26B Fall Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 30920102 5.03 6.8 4485 2737 5503 31.6 1.45 83.8 45.0 77.5 26D Little Elk Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 72182 6.82 6.1 4220 2560 5855 29.3 1.37 81.3 45.6 71.0 26E North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 241 85.47 91.1 4880 2247 7639 36.3 1.60 121.7 44.0 81.9 27B McLain Gulch > Pine Creek - at mouth 30920101 2.93 4.1 3771 2170 5098 21.8 1.15 36.2 49.4 39.5 27D Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth 72189 301.8 319.6 4272 1697 9566 31.5 1.46 115.2 45.3 49.6

245

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 5 Larger ground-water rights in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin (> or = 0.02 cfs).

POD Permit Cert. Well Log POD Location: Well First Static Rate POU Location: Acres Priority Applicant in this No. No. ID Twp, Rng, Sec, 40 40 Depth Water Water (cfs or gpm) Twp, Rng, Sec Irrigated or Year HUC7 (feet) Depth Depth Other Use (feet) (feet)

02C G-2584 36713 T14S, R43E, Sec 13, SW 1.23 cfs T14S, R43E, Secs 98.0 1964 Kivett none found SE ------13, 24 02C G-11015 79413 T14S, R43E, Sec 13, SE 2.13 cfs T14S, R43E, 170.6 1989 Harris BAKE 1535 NW 600 235 90 (2.90 cfs) test Sec 11,12,13,14 (Harbison) 18C G-9991 67063 none found T6S, R45E, Sec 27 1.5 cfs T6S, R45E, Mining 1982 Cornucopia NE SW Sec 21,27,28 Mining Co 18F G-7277 66554 T7S, R46E, Sec 31 0.29 cfs T7S, R46E, 29.6 sup 1977 Greener BAKE 720 SW NW 18+ --- 0 Sec 31 18F G-4227 37780 drain tile – T7S, R46E, Sec 31 <5 ------0.125 cfs T8S, R46E, 20.0 sup 1968 Bowerman no well log NE SE Sec 5 18F G-3055 34967 drain tile – T7S, R46E, Sec 31 <5 ------0.18 cfs T8S, R46E, 14.0 1965 Bowerman no well log SE SE Sec 6 18F G-3724 37779 drain tiles – T7S, R46E, Sec 31 <5 ------0.25 cfs T8S, R46E, 20.0 sup 1967 Bowerman no well log SE SE Sec 5 18F G-3047 39249 drain tiles – T7S, R46E, Sec 31 <5 --- -- 0.08 cfs T7S, R46E, 6.5 1965 Towell no well log SE SE Sec 31 18F G-10102 54070 none found T8S, R46E, Sec 16 0.096 cfs T8S, R46E, 7.7 1983 Freeman NW NW Sec 16 19A G-2766 37775 drain tile – T7S, R45E, Sec 36 <5 ------0.17 cfs T7S, R45E, 10.1 sup 1964 Sly no well log SW NW Sec 36 19A G-7882 76489 drain tiles – T7S, R45E, Sec 36 <5 ------1.05 cfs T7S, R45E, 41.9 sup 1977 Sly no well log Drain 1 - NE SW Sec 36 Drain 2 - SW SW Drain 3 - NE SW Drain 4 - SW SW 19A G-5735 50945 sump – T7S, R45E, Sec 36 <10 ------0.17 cfs T7S, R45E, 13.6 sup 1973 Hogg no well log SW SW Sec 36 19A G-10902 -- drain tile – T7S, R45E, Sec 36 <5 ------75 gpm T7S, R45E, 127.5 sup 1988 Harris no well log SE NW (0.17 cfs) Sec 36 G-13045 -- difficult to T7S, R45E, Sec 36 0.57 cfs being 56.0 sup 1995 & Chetwood 19C well1 determine Well 1 - SE SE from all sources 1996 19C well2 Well 2 - NW SE combined 19C well3 Well 3 - NE NE G-13466 -- difficult to T7S, R45E, Sec 36 Well 0.16 cfs T7S, R45E, domestic 1997 Chetwood 19C well1 determine 1 - SE SE Sec 36 plus 58 sup 19C well2 Well 2 - NW SE 19C well3 Well 3 - NE SE 19C G-2575 34315 drain tile – T8S, R45E, Sec 1 <5 0.22 cfs T8S, R45E, 17.6 sup 1964 Langley no well log NW SE Sec 1

246

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 5 Larger ground-water rights in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin (> or = 0.02 cfs).

19C G-12522 -- none found T8S, R46E, Sec 6 ------1.37 cfs T8S, R46E, 109.5 sup 1991 Vaughan NW SW Sec 6 19C ? BAKE 1731 T8S, R46E, Sec 6 175 10 10 200 gpm test 1990 Vaughan NE SW (0.45 cfs) 19C ? BAKE 1839 T8S, R46E, Sec 6 230 9 9 300 gpm test 1991 Vaughan NE SW (0.67 cfs) 19C G-2419 33399 T8S, R46E, Sec 8 0.12 cfs T8S, R46E, 9.0 1963 School Dist BAKE 756 NE SW ------5 Sec 8 (1962) 61 19C G-2807 39255 T8S, R46E, Sec 8 0.25 cfs T8S, R46E, Municipal 1965 City of Well 2 BAKE 760 SW SE 275 -- 18 (0.33 cfs) test Sec 8,16,17 (1955) Halfway 19F G-10920 -- T8S, R46E, Sec 8 1.34 cfs T8S, R46E, Municipal 1989 City of Well 3 BAKE 2063 NE SW 403 24 12 Sec 8,17 Halfway 19F G-10968 -- unrecorded T8S, R46E, Sec 8 1.00 cfs T8S, R46E, Municipal 1990 City of Well 1 copy found SW SE 300 10 45 (300 gpm) test Sec 8,17 (1971) Halfway 19F G-10771 68085 none found T8S, R46E, Sec 8 0.123 cfs T8S, R46E, 9.8 sup 1987 Howard SE NW Sec 8 19F G-3323 35100 none found T8S, R46E, Sec 8 0.02 cfs T8S, R46E, 1.5 sup 1966 Payton SW SE Sec 8 19F G-12826 -- sump – no T8S, R46E, Sec 8 <10 -- -- 0.89 cfs T8S, R46E, 84.0 sup 1989 Summers well log NW NW Sec 8 G-13420 -- difficult to T8S, R46E, 3.19 cfs being T8S, R46E, 52.3 pri 1994 Summers 18F well1 determine Well 1 - NWNW Sec 5 0.34 cfs Well 1 Secs 5,7,12,16 203.2 sup 19C well2 Well 2 - NWSW Sec7 0.89 cfs Well 2 19C well3 Well 3 - SWSW Sec7 0.89 cfs Well 3 21H well4 Well 4 - SESW Sec12 0.62 cfs Well 4 22F well5 Well 5 - NENE Sec16 0.50 cfs Well 5 20E G-15654 -- BAKE T7S, R45E, Sec 25 0.07 cfs T7S, R45E, 10.0 sup 2003 Moore 51138 SE SE 180 55 12 (80 gpm) test Sec 25 20F G-4194 45718 drain tile – T7S, R46E, Sec 31 0.06 cfs T7S, R46E, 5.0 sup 1968 Towell no well log NE SE Sec 31 20F G-1167 30918 drain tiles – T7S, R46E, Sec 32 0.09 cfs T7S, R46E, 7.2 sup 1958 Laird no well log SW SW Sec 32 20F G-3126 39113 drain tiles – T8S, R46E, Sec 4 0.33 cfs T8S, R46E, 26.3 sup 1965 Huff no well log NW NW Sec 4 20F G-2565 39248 T8S, R46E, Sec 15 0.92 cfs T8S, R46E, 33.7 pri 1964 Laird BAKE 778 NE NE 274 -- 8 (600 gpm) test Sec 15 40.0 sup 20F G-13599 -- T8S, R46E, Sec 15 0.75 cfs T8S, R46E, 5.5 pri 1992 Bird BAKE 1881 SW NE 175 20 3 (500 gpm) test Sec 15 54.5 sup 20F ? -- BAKE T8S, R46E, Sec 24 2005 Pine Val 51431well1 NW NW 180 4 -1 60 gpm test Ranch

247

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 5 Larger ground-water rights in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin (> or = 0.02 cfs).

21H G-7752 83053 sump/drain T7S, R46E, Sec 33 <10 0.34 cfs T7S, R46E, 26.9 sup 1977 Johnson no well log NE SW Sec 33 21H G-2217 34312 drain tile – T8S, R46E, Sec 10 <5 0.50 cfs T8S, R46E, 49.5 pri/sup 1962 Irwin no well log NW SE Sec 10 21H G-949 30338 none found T8S, R46E, Sec 11 1.28 cfs T8S, R46E, 102.6 sup 1958 Gover & NW SW Sec 14 Barton 21H G-2007 34308 T8S, R46E, Sec 11 0.37 cfs T8S, R46E, 4.0 pri 1961 Gover & BAKE 772 NW SE 122 4 (270 gpm) test Sec 11 35.0 sup Barton G-13271 -- T8S, R46E, 2.04 cfs being T8S, R46E, 217.0 sup 1994 Summers 21H well1 BAKE 1959 Well 1 - SESE Sec 10 195 63 14 0.89 cfs Well 1 Secs 10, 16 22F well2 Well 2 - NWNE Sec16 1.15 cfs Well 2 22F ? BAKE 1887 T8S, R46E, Sec 16 64 13 13 300 gpm test 1992 Summers NW NE (0.67 cfs) 22F ? BAKE 1958 T8S, R46E, Sec 16 160 -- 13 350 gpm test 1993 Summers NW NE (0.78 cfs) 22F ? BAKE T8S, R46E, Sec 16 263 52 30 150 gpm test 1999 Summers 50636 wel2 NW NE (0.33 cfs) 22F G-8870 61084 none found T8S, R46E, Sec 21 0.14 cfs T8S, R46E, 10.8 sup 1979 Martin SE NE Sec 21 22A G-3010 34305 T8S, R46E, Sec 21 1.31 cfs T8S, R46E, Sprinkling, 1965 E Lumber BAKE 790 NW NE 307 -- 20 (590 gpm) test Sec 21 Pond, FP Company 22A ? -- BAKE T8S, R46E, Sec 21 115 13 13 45 gpm test 1990 E Lumber 51997 NW NE Company 22A ? -- BAKE T8S, R46E, Sec 21 170 -- 9 100 gpm test Domestic 2007 Halfway 51729 SW NE Airport 22A ? -- BAKE 789 T8S, R46E, Sec 21 267 -- 11 260 gpm test 1959 USA NE NE WWNF 22A G-11466 -- T8S, R46E, Sec 21 0.11 cfs T8S, R46E, 9.0 1990 USA BAKE 1843 NE NE 202 118 17 (150 gpm) test Sec 21 WWNF G-16726 -- BAKE T8S, R46E, 11.61 cfs T8S, R46E, Agriculture, 2009 Pine Valley 22B well1 none well1 Well 1 - NENE Sec 25 Secs 928.5 sup Land Co 22A well2 none well2 Well 2 - NENW Sec 25 13,23,24,25,26 22A well3 none well3 Well 3 - NENE Sec 26 22B well4 51941well4 Well 4 - NENE Sec 25 740 140 96 (600 gpm) test (2008) 22A well5 none well5 Well 5 - SESW Sec 24 22F G-13680 -- T8S, R46E, Sec 9, 0.67 cfs permit T8S, R46E, 118.0 1990 Gulick BAKE 762 SW SE 90 12 12 (300 gpm) test Secs 9, 10 27D G-12778 -- T7S, R48E, Sec 9 0.29 cfs permit T7S, R48E, Fish 1992 Idaho Power BAKE 1862 Well 1 - SE NW 79 16 16 (200 gpm) test Sec 9 Propagation Co BAKE 1861 Well 2 - SE NW 129 13 13 (300 gpm) test

248

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 5 Larger ground-water rights in the Brownlee Reservoir Subbasin (> or = 0.02 cfs).

27D G-15440 -- Same well T7S, R48E, Sec 9 1.8 cfs T7S, R48E, Fish 2000 Idaho Power as above Well 1 - SE NW Sec 9 Propagation Co Well 2 - SE NW 27D ? BAKE T7S, R48E, Sec 9 70 26 7 60 gpm test Industrial 1986 Idaho Power 50570 NW SW (0.13 cfs) Co

Table A4. 6 Consumptive Water Use Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Consumptive Use (cfs) as a Percentage of 50% Exceedance Stream Flow Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 01D Road Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04E Birch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.14 0.40 0.81 0.93 1.55 1.20 0.39 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.07 05C Benson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.09 0.21 0.40 0.67 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 07B Ryan Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08A Bay Horse Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.26 0.36 0.46 0.60 0.44 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 08B Morgan Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08C Hibbard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 08D Fox Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08F Connor Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08G Bear Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09F Douglas Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10B Big Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 10B Little Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10C Soda Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10E Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10E Quicksand Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12A Tarter Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13C Ferry Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

249

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 6 Consumptive Water Use Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Consumptive Use (cfs) as a Percentage of 50% Exceedance Stream Flow Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 13C Road Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14A Black Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 14B Eagle Island Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14F Cottonwood Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15B Bob Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15B Hunsaker Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.29 0.37 0.45 0.57 0.44 0.33 0.08 0.08 0.08 15B Hunter Creek > Snake River- at mouth 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 15C Holbrook Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15C Homestead Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15C Irondyke Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15D Herman Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15E Ashby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15E Ballard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 15F Copper Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15F Nelson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16B McGraw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16C Spring Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16E Leep Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16F Kirby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17A Buck Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17A Doyle Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17A Lynch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17A Squaw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17C Thirtytwo Point Creek > Snake River - at 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mouth 17D Steamboat Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18E Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Fuller Creek 0.37 0.42 0.52 3.95 5.54 7.12 8.21 6.03 4.32 0.35 0.37 0.38 20D Clear Creek > Pine Creek - abv unnam str 0.10 0.18 0.37 0.61 1.03 0.95 0.28 0.16 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.10 20F Clear Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.21 0.34 0.60 19.1 47.9 39.0 12.8 5.21 2.77 0.15 0.16 0.20 21D East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Beecher 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.50 0.38 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 Creek

250

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 6 Consumptive Water Use Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Consumptive Use (cfs) as a Percentage of 50% Exceedance Stream Flow Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 21G Dry Creek > East Pine Creek - at mouth 0.27 0.53 0.74 3.22 6.60 5.16 1.72 0.70 0.38 0.04 0.08 0.17 21H East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.20 0.42 0.76 15.6 38.4 30.6 10.1 4.07 2.14 0.08 0.11 0.16 22E Deer Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.16 0.46 0.98 1.12 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.10 23C Fourmile Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23E Fish Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.34 0.43 0.57 0.41 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 23F Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Long Branch 1.91 3.48 6.44 55.8 108.0 97.7 58.4 35.2 23.0 1.06 1.29 1.75 Creek 24A North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Duck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Creek 24C Duck Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25E Elk Creek > Lake Fork Creek - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.96 3.76 4.96 3.60 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - abv Elk 0.54 0.82 1.59 7.30 11.2 12.4 11.6 8.21 5.80 0.49 0.53 0.57 Creek 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - at 0.57 0.90 1.76 7.48 11.1 12.2 11.5 8.18 5.78 0.47 0.52 0.59 mouth 26B Fall Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26D Little Elk Creek > North Pine Creek - at 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 7.57 6.13 2.05 0.82 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 mouth 26E North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.81 1.39 2.52 9.44 15.6 13.9 9.11 5.84 3.99 0.36 0.50 0.75 27B McLain Gulch > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27D Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth 2.55 4.60 8.39 62.30 118.0 107.0 65.70 40.10 26.40 1.35 1.68 2.33

Table A4. 7 Modeled Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow at Mouth (cfs) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 01B Wheel Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 0.23 0.80 1.35 0.34 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 01D Road Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 0.12 0.41 0.70 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 04E Birch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 4.01 11.00 19.50 10.80 4.88 2.28 0.52 0.22 0.10 0.14 0.52 2.02

251

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 7 Modeled Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow at Mouth (cfs) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 05C Benson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.05 2.32 4.53 7.51 2.08 0.28 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.25 0.51 07B Ryan Gulch > Snake River - at mouth 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.18 0.19 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.05 08A Bay Horse Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.26 0.27 0.35 0.69 0.62 0.23 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.15 08B Morgan Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.67 2.29 3.08 5.88 4.82 1.49 0.41 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.72 1.07 08C Hibbard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.54 1.84 2.26 4.14 4.99 2.56 0.80 0.38 0.35 0.43 0.89 1.05 08D Fox Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.98 2.13 2.38 4.23 5.80 1.31 1.11 0.57 0.56 0.67 1.27 1.43 08F Connor Creek > Snake River - at mouth 3.18 3.55 4.31 8.11 11.70 6.71 2.37 1.25 1.21 1.36 2.24 2.46 08G Bear Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.42 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.10 09F Douglas Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.26 0.33 0.35 0.48 0.35 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.15 10B Big Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.35 0.45 0.62 0.80 0.79 0.43 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.24 10B Little Deacon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.41 0.42 0.26 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.17 10C Soda Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.07 1.36 1.89 2.77 2.92 1.59 0.60 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.64 0.77 10E Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.40 0.50 0.71 1.01 1.10 0.70 0.25 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.24 0.26 10E Quicksand Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.20 0.27 0.42 0.56 0.52 0.33 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.12 12A Tarter Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.43 0.89 1.35 1.46 0.57 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.25 13C Ferry Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.14 0.26 0.48 0.57 0.25 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.08 13C Road Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.33 0.67 1.09 1.27 0.43 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 14A Black Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.40 0.58 0.84 1.16 0.98 0.30 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.26 14B Eagle Island Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.21 0.31 0.41 0.43 0.27 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.12 14F Cottonwood Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 15B Bob Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.29 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.08 15B Hunsaker Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.38 0.54 0.71 0.81 0.54 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.23 15B Hunter Creek > Snake River- at mouth 0.15 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 15C Holbrook Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.28 0.42 0.53 0.48 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.15 15C Homestead Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.47 0.67 0.87 1.00 0.81 0.39 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.29 15C Irondyke Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.18 0.27 0.35 0.29 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.09 15D Herman Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.55 0.74 1.01 1.39 1.41 0.67 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.24 0.36 15E Ashby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.24 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 15E Ballard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.51 0.74 0.96 1.10 0.86 0.35 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.31 15F Copper Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.22 0.31 0.50 0.61 0.55 0.32 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.13 15F Nelson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.86 1.24 1.45 1.55 2.14 1.12 0.31 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.38 0.62

252

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 7 Modeled Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow at Mouth (cfs) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 16B McGraw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 2.79 4.01 10.50 50.60 28.60 6.88 1.07 0.59 0.46 0.60 1.42 1.53 16C Spring Creek > Snake River - at mouth 2.58 3.42 3.09 2.61 2.85 1.35 0.39 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.87 1.76 16E Leep Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.84 1.15 1.05 0.80 0.87 0.38 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.26 0.55 16F Kirby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.70 0.95 0.95 0.87 1.41 0.80 0.22 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.32 0.49 17A Buck Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.55 0.74 0.81 0.91 1.83 1.17 0.30 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.31 0.41 17A Doyle Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.74 1.01 1.02 0.95 1.59 0.93 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.36 0.53 17A Lynch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.65 0.89 0.89 0.79 1.25 0.70 0.19 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.29 0.46 17A Squaw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.68 0.92 1.04 1.20 2.71 1.89 0.49 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.44 0.52 17C Thirtytwo Point Creek > Snake River - at 1.77 2.38 2.48 2.77 5.37 3.42 0.85 0.31 0.25 0.29 0.98 1.31 mouth 17D Steamboat Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.58 2.18 2.37 2.82 4.89 2.79 0.64 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.76 1.14 18E Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Fuller Creek 31.3 50.7 95.1 142.0 291.0 366.0 61.9 27.2 23.5 26.4 31.9 35.0 20D Clear Creek > Pine Creek - abv unnam str 19.5 34.5 69.6 106.0 181.0 164.0 28.3 13.7 12.8 14.5 16.3 20.0 20F Clear Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 24.2 41.6 78.3 116.0 190.0 170.0 30.6 15.0 14.0 15.9 18.3 23.1 21D East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Beecher 11.8 21.7 43.3 61.0 82.4 56.5 9.21 4.84 5.06 6.05 7.89 10.9 Creek 21G Dry Creek > East Pine Creek - at mouth 3.60 6.71 9.35 10.2 4.96 1.58 0.56 0.35 0.37 0.48 1.01 2.28 21H East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 19.5 37.5 62.0 81.4 93.4 60.4 10.5 5.66 5.91 7.14 10.1 15.7 22E Deer Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 1.88 5.32 11.3 12.9 3.10 0.40 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.32 1.14 23C Fourmile Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 1.80 4.02 7.21 8.84 3.61 0.64 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.37 1.09 23E Fish Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 6.04 9.79 16.6 23.6 32.0 18.6 2.70 1.36 1.45 1.83 3.14 4.90 23F Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Long Branch 89.8 156.0 278.0 388.0 599.0 607.0 107.0 50.3 45.9 52.5 65.4 83.5 Creek 24A North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Duck 6.66 14.5 28.6 38.9 22.3 5.17 0.79 0.57 0.75 1.06 2.50 6.17 Creek 24C Duck Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 7.89 15.0 30.7 42.5 37.8 18.9 3.45 2.12 2.44 3.18 5.02 7.90 25E Elk Creek > Lake Fork Creek - at mouth 9.41 15.5 31.3 49.2 76.6 63.6 12.1 6.33 6.49 7.57 8.38 9.68 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - abv Elk 10.0 15.3 29.4 48.9 88.5 80.1 15.7 8.09 8.03 9.12 9.81 10.6 Creek 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - at 20.2 31.9 62.3 99.8 166.0 144.0 28.0 14.5 14.6 16.8 18.5 20.9 mouth 26B Fall Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 3.08 5.61 10.2 13.3 10.3 3.79 0.60 0.35 0.43 0.59 1.38 2.66

253

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 7 Modeled Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Mean Monthly Natural Stream Flow at Mouth (cfs) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 26D Little Elk Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 4.02 7.12 12.4 16.3 14.8 5.95 0.86 0.50 0.59 0.80 1.79 3.34 26E North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 53.2 91.8 166.0 240.0 271.0 184.0 35.5 19.1 19.9 23.8 33.0 49.3 27B McLain Gulch > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.73 1.11 1.58 2.07 1.53 0.46 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.50 27D Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth 156.0 273.0 484.0 677.0 914.0 812.0 146.0 71.0 67.6 78.6 102.0 142.0

Table A4. 8 Water Availability Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

254

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 8 Water Availability Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Monthly Net Water Available by Water Availability Basin (cfs); Annual Storage (af) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Storage 13C Ferry Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.14 0.26 0.48 0.57 0.25 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.08 116.0 13C Road Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.33 0.67 1.09 1.27 0.43 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.19 249.0 14A Black Canyon Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.40 0.58 0.84 1.14 0.96 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.26 283.0 14B Eagle Island Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.21 0.31 0.41 0.43 0.27 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.12 119.0 14F Cottonwood Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 38.3 15B Bob Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.29 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.08 82.2 15B Hunsaker Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.30 0.46 0.60 0.52 0.17 -0.25 -0.51 -0.41 -0.30 -0.04 0.05 0.15 135.0 15B Hunter Creek > Snake River- at mouth 0.14 0.21 0.30 0.26 0.12 -0.01 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 0.01 0.04 0.07 71.6 15C Holbrook Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.28 0.42 0.53 0.48 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.15 141.0 15C Homestead Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.47 0.67 0.87 1.00 0.81 0.39 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.29 295.0 15C Irondyke Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.18 0.27 0.35 0.29 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.09 89.9 15D Herman Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.55 0.74 1.01 1.39 1.41 0.67 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.24 0.36 409.0 15E Ashby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.24 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 62.40 15E Ballard Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.51 0.74 0.96 1.10 0.86 0.35 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.31 289.0 15F Copper Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.22 0.31 0.50 0.61 0.55 0.32 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.13 179.0 15F Nelson Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.86 1.24 1.45 1.55 2.14 1.12 0.31 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.38 0.62 603.0 16B McGraw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 2.79 4.01 10.50 50.60 28.60 6.88 1.07 0.59 0.46 0.60 1.42 1.53 6570.0 16C Spring Creek > Snake River - at mouth 2.58 3.42 3.09 2.61 2.85 1.35 0.39 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.87 1.76 1170.0 16E Leep Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.84 1.15 1.05 0.80 0.87 0.38 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.26 0.55 369.0 16F Kirby Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.70 0.95 0.95 0.87 1.41 0.80 0.22 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.32 0.49 419.0 17A Buck Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.55 0.74 0.81 0.91 1.83 1.17 0.30 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.31 0.41 441.0 17A Doyle Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.74 1.01 1.02 0.95 1.59 0.93 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.36 0.53 462.0 17A Lynch Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.65 0.89 0.89 0.79 1.25 0.70 0.19 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.29 0.46 381.0 17A Squaw Creek > Snake River - at mouth 0.68 0.92 1.04 1.20 2.71 1.89 0.49 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.44 0.52 625.0 17C Thirtytwo Point Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.77 2.38 2.48 2.77 5.37 3.42 0.85 0.31 0.25 0.29 0.98 1.31 1340.0 17D Steamboat Creek > Snake River - at mouth 1.58 2.18 2.37 2.82 4.89 2.79 0.64 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.76 1.14 1190.0 18E Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Fuller Creek 10.9 25.3 64.6 108.0 255.0 329.0 33.7 2.57 2.28 9.15 11.6 14.6 52300.0 20D Clear Creek > Pine Creek - abv unnam str 4.40 11.3 39.2 75.4 150.0 133.0 13.0 3.61 3.67 5.40 5.61 4.90 27100.0 20F Clear Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 8.99 26.3 52.7 71.9 117.0 106.0 2.76 -5.21 -3.77 0.75 3.14 7.90 23900.0 21D East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Beecher 5.77 11.6 27.2 44.7 65.9 40.1 3.11 -0.20 0.03 1.04 2.22 4.87 12,500.0 Creek 21G Dry Creek > East Pine Creek - at mouth 3.33 6.18 8.61 6.98 -1.64 -3.58 -1.16 -0.35 -0.01 0.44 0.93 2.11 1710.0 21H East Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 13.3 25.3 45.2 49.8 39.0 13.8 -5.62 -4.41 -2.23 1.06 3.99 9.54 12,100.0 22E Deer Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 1.72 4.86 10.3 11.8 2.83 0.36 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.29 1.04 2010.0 23C Fourmile Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 1.80 4.02 7.21 8.84 3.61 0.64 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.37 1.09 1680.0 23E Fish Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 6.04 9.79 16.6 23.4 31.7 18.2 2.13 0.95 1.16 1.83 3.14 4.90 7220.0 23F Pine Creek > Snake River - abv Long Branch 42.8 91.6 185.0 239.0 382.0 398.0 7.62 -24.9 -17.1 10.2 21.6 83.5 85200.0

255

Appendix 4.1 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A4. 8 Water Availability Summary (50% Exceedance) for OWRD Water Availability Basins.

HUC7 OWRD Water Availability Basin Name Monthly Net Water Available by Water Availability Basin (cfs); Annual Storage (af) Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Storage Creek 24A North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - abv Duck 6.66 14.5 28.6 38.9 22.3 5.17 0.79 0.57 0.75 1.06 2.50 6.17 7700.0 Creek 24C Duck Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 4.89 9.00 20.7 32.5 27.8 8.90 0.45 -0.88 -0.56 0.18 2.02 4.90 6710.0 25E Elk Creek > Lake Fork Creek - at mouth 6.41 9.50 15.3 37.1 63.6 49.8 4.14 -0.27 1.01 4.57 5.38 6.68 12300.0 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - abv Elk 7.46 9.48 19.8 33.6 69.3 59.7 2.14 -2.12 0.23 6.63 7.28 8.03 13500.0 Creek 25F Lake Fork Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 12.0 16.0 35.5 67.3 130.0 107.0 9.50 -0.68 1.82 9.33 11.0 13.3 24900.0 26B Fall Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 3.08 5.61 10.2 13.3 10.3 3.79 0.60 0.35 0.43 0.59 1.38 2.66 3150.0 26D Little Elk Creek > North Pine Creek - at mouth 2.02 3.12 6.40 7.34 1.23 -6.18 -2.85 -1.24 -0.78 -0.94 0.05 1.34 1290.0 26E North Pine Creek > Pine Creek - at mouth 32.4 70.4 118.0 186.0 210.0 125.0 6.39 -6.74 -4.09 3.44 12.5 28.6 47800.0 27B McLain Gulch > Pine Creek - at mouth 0.73 1.11 1.58 2.07 1.53 0.46 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.50 512.0 27D Pine Creek > Snake River - at mouth 88.4 177.0 354.0 486.0 652.0 559.0 19.3 -29.0 -18.8 16.0 38.8 75.2 149000.0

256

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 4.2

Map A4. 1 Map of annual precipitation in inches (NRCS).

257

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 2 Index map showing locations of maps A4.3 through A4.9

258

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 3 Upper Boulder Creek gullies and incised channels (source Bliss 2009).

259

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 4 Cornucopia Highway ditches and the Moore Ditch (source: Bliss 2004).

260

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 5 Posey Valley Ditch to Laird Reservoir (source Google Earth).

261

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 6 Birch Creek Canal to Kivett Reservoir number 3 (source Google Earth).

262

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 7 Birch Creek channelization through Birch Creek Meadow (source Google Earth).

263

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 8 Birch Creek Canal to Vane Ranch Reservoir and Love Reservoir.

264

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 9 Culverts, ditches and gullies along Interstate 84 (source map: Google Earth).

265

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 10 Land cover by HUC 6 (NRCS Data Mart).

266

Appendix 4.2 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Map A4. 11 Map showing zones of rain, rain on snow and snow melt.

267

Appendix 5 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 5

Table A5. 1 Wetland summary by HUC 6 watershed. HUC 6 Name Wetland type Number of Acres wetlands 1. Road Gulch-Snake River Freshwater Emergent Wetland 12 15.6 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 6 19.2 Freshwater Pond 1 0.3 Lake (islands on the Snake River) 7 27.6 Riverine 4 15.5 2. Upper Birch Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 57 56.5 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 12 6.4 Freshwater Pond 20 27.6 Riverine 25 31.0 3. Love Reservoir Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 6 1.8 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 4 1.3 Freshwater Pond 6 1.2 Lake 10 158.6 Riverine 10 60.5 4. Lower Birch Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 10 8.8 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 11 19.0 Freshwater Pond 6 4.5 Riverine 13 30.5 5. Benson Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 20 27.4 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 11 9.1 Freshwater Pond 2 0.8 Lake 1 0.9 Riverine 13 34.7 6. Grouse Creek-Snake Freshwater Emergent Wetland 4 2.7 River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 3 1.0 Freshwater Pond 3 2.3 Lake 3 6.9 Riverine 10 21.5 7. Ryan Gulch-Snake River Freshwater Emergent Wetland 9 1.7 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 14 12.7 Riverine 5 3.9 8. Morgan Creek-Snake Freshwater Emergent Wetland 25 8.3 River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 58 41.8 Freshwater Pond 2 0.5 Riverine 40 98.4

268

Appendix 5 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A5. 1 Wetland summary by HUC 6 watershed. HUC 6 Name Wetland type Number of Acres wetlands 9. Dennett Creek-Snake Freshwater Emergent Wetland 3 4.3 River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 1 0.5 Lake 1 2.1 10. Raft Creek-Snake River Freshwater Emergent Wetland 9 4.7 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 21 37.0 Freshwater Pond 3 1.7 Riverine 9 16.1 11. Jackson Gulch-Snake Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1 1.3 River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 2 1.2 Riverine 2 3.1 12. Cottonwood Creek- Freshwater Emergent Wetland 2 0.1 Snake River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 3 3.4 Freshwater Pond 2 0.5 Riverine 9 20.1 13. Dukes Creek-Snake Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 1 0.9 River Riverine 4 12.1 14. Oxbow Dam-Snake Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1 0.3 River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 5 11.9 Freshwater Pond 1 0.1 Riverine 23 49.4 15. Herman Creek-Snake Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 17 62.5 River Freshwater Pond 3 0.7 Lake 5 9.6 Riverine 7 18.9 16. McGraw Creek-Snake Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1 1.5 River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 21 33.7 Freshwater Pond 1 0.2 Riverine 11 39.2 17. Hells Canyon Dam- Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1 0.6 Snake River Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 17 32.5 Riverine 9 22.0 18. Upper Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 53 116.0 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 59 183.7 Freshwater Pond 15 30.5 Lake 1 14.7 Riverine 14 63.4 19. McMullen Slough Freshwater Emergent Wetland 77 1101.1

269

Appendix 5 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A5. 1 Wetland summary by HUC 6 watershed. HUC 6 Name Wetland type Number of Acres wetlands Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 49 98.6 Freshwater Pond 14 4.1 Lake 1 15.4 Riverine 20 44.0 20. Clear Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 68 340.3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 75 246.9 Freshwater Pond 14 7.4 Lake 2 51.7 Riverine 11 53.8 21. East Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 83 400.0 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 89 271.0 Freshwater Pond 14 18.2 Riverine 25 66.5 22. Deer Creek-Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 46 263.6 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 31 80.8 Freshwater Pond 25 8.8 Lake 3 22.8 Riverine 30 101.2 23. Fish Creek-Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 35 120.7 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 40 77.7 Freshwater Pond 7 1.2 Riverine 33 101.0 24. Upper North Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 17 47.3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 19 27.8 Freshwater Pond 4 20.3 Riverine 17 39.7 25. Lake Fork Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 36 116.0 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 31 66.9 Freshwater Pond 9 15.0 Lake 1 73.6 Riverine 9 25.7 26. Lower North Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1 0.4 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 22 34.4 Riverine 34 60.4 27. Lower Pine Creek Freshwater Emergent Wetland 1 0.6 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 19 40.0 Riverine 31 53.0

270

Appendix 5 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

271

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 6

Table A6. 1 Road summary by HUC 6. Distance < 200 feet from Density roads HUC 6 stream <200 feet from Code HUC 6 Watershed (miles) Road surface stream (mi/mi2) 1 Road Gulch-Snake River 5.1 Not Known 0.60 1 Road Gulch-Snake River 1.2 Paved Hwy 0.14 2 Upper Birch Creek 0.1 Aggregate 0.00 2 Upper Birch Creek 7.4 Not Known 0.27 3 Love Reservoir Creek 5.8 Natural Unimproved 0.26 3 Love Reservoir Creek 4.6 Not Known 0.21 4 Lower Birch Creek 2.2 Aggregate 0.10 4 Lower Birch Creek 0.6 Natural Improved 0.03 4 Lower Birch Creek 3.3 Natural Unimproved 0.16 4 Lower Birch Creek 4 Not Known 0.19 4 Lower Birch Creek 0.4 Paved Hwy 0.02 5 Benson Creek 1.3 Natural Improved 0.08 5 Benson Creek 3.8 Natural Unimproved 0.22 5 Benson Creek 0.4 Not Known 0.02 5 Benson Creek 2 Paved Hwy 0.12 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 1 Not Known 0.12 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 0.7 Paved Hwy 0.08 7 Ryan Gulch-Snake River 1.1 Natural Improved 0.12 7 Ryan Gulch-Snake River 1.3 Not Known 0.14 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River 4.1 Aggregate 0.10 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River 6.6 Natural Improved 0.16 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River 7 Not Known 0.17 9 Dennet Creek-Snake River 0.1 Not Known 0.02 10 Raft Creek-Snake River 3.6 Not Known 0.17 11 Jackson Gulch - Snake River 0.3 Natural Improved 0.06 11 Jackson Gulch - Snake River 0.3 Not Known 0.06 13 Dukes Creek - Snake River 1.6 Natural Improved 0.31 14 Oxbow Dam-Snake 1.3 Aggregate 0.10 14 Oxbow Dam-Snake 0.1 Not Known 0.01 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 0.1 Not Known 0.00 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 3.3 Aggregate 0.13 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 1.1 Hard Surface 0.04 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 2.4 Natural Improved 0.10

272

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 1 Road summary by HUC 6. Distance < 200 feet from Density roads HUC 6 stream <200 feet from Code HUC 6 Watershed (miles) Road surface stream (mi/mi2) 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 0.6 Natural Unimproved 0.02 15 Herman Creek - Snake River 4.5 Not Known 0.18 16 McGraw Cree - Snake River 0.2 Aggregate 0.01 16 McGraw Cree - Snake River 1.5 Natural Unimproved 0.08 16 McGraw Cree - Snake River 1.5 Not Known 0.08 Hells Canyon Dam - Snake 17 River 0.1 Aggregate 0.01 18 Upper Pine Creek 2 Aggregate 0.06 18 Upper Pine Creek 1.6 Natural Improved 0.05 18 Upper Pine Creek 5.4 Natural Unimproved 0.16 18 Upper Pine Creek 4.1 Not Known 0.12 18 Upper Pine Creek 3.9 Paved Hwy 0.11 19 McMullen Slough 1.4 Aggregate 0.05 19 McMullen Slough 1.3 Bituminous 0.04 19 McMullen Slough 5.2 Natural Improved 0.17 19 McMullen Slough 5 Natural Unimproved 0.17 19 McMullen Slough 10.7 Not Known 0.36 19 McMullen Slough 3.4 Paved Hwy 0.11 20 Clear Creek 9.2 Aggregate 0.30 20 Clear Creek 0.5 Bituminous 0.02 20 Clear Creek 2.2 Natural Improved 0.07 20 Clear Creek 12.8 Natural Unimproved 0.42 20 Clear Creek 1.6 Not Known 0.05 20 Clear Creek 0.2 Paved Hwy 0.01 21 East Pine Creek 14.8 Aggregate 0.37 21 East Pine Creek 3.7 Natural Improved 0.09 21 East Pine Creek 27.5 Natural Unimproved 0.68 21 East Pine Creek 7.5 Not Known 0.19 21 East Pine Creek 0.1 Paved Hwy 0.00 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek 1.7 Aggregate 0.07 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek 0.7 Natural Improved 0.03 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek 1.2 Natural Unimproved 0.05 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek 3.1 Not Known 0.12 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 6.5 Aggregate 0.17 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 1.8 Natural Improved 0.05 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 6.1 Natural Unimproved 0.16

273

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 1 Road summary by HUC 6. Distance < 200 feet from Density roads HUC 6 stream <200 feet from Code HUC 6 Watershed (miles) Road surface stream (mi/mi2) 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 8.8 Not Known 0.24 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 3.1 Paved Hwy 0.08 24 Upper North Pine Creek 1.9 Aggregate 0.06 24 Upper North Pine Creek 7 Bituminous 0.24 24 Upper North Pine Creek 1.5 Natural Improved 0.05 24 Upper North Pine Creek 16.4 Natural Unimproved 0.55 24 Upper North Pine Creek 9.5 Not Known 0.32 25 Lake Fork Creek 2 Aggregate 0.06 25 Lake Fork Creek 0.4 Bituminous 0.01 25 Lake Fork Creek 1 Natural Improved 0.03 25 Lake Fork Creek 2.5 Natural Unimproved 0.08 26 Lower North Pine Creek 4.9 Aggregate 0.19 26 Lower North Pine Creek 5.4 Bituminous 0.21 26 Lower North Pine Creek 7.3 Natural Unimproved 0.29 26 Lower North Pine Creek 0.3 Not Known 0.01 27 Lower Pine Creek 0.1 Not Known 0.01 27 Lower Pine Creek 4.9 Paved Hwy 0.27

274

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 2 Summary of roads on slopes exceeding 50%.

Density roads <200 Distance < 200 feet feet from stream from stream and and slope > 50% Code HUC 6 Watershed slope > 50% (miles) Road surface (mi/mi2) 7 Ryan Gulch-Snake River 0.1 Natural Improved 0.013 7 Ryan Gulch-Snake River 0.2 Not Known 0.023 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River 0.3 Aggregate 0.007 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River 0.5 Natural Improved 0.012 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River 0.3 Not Known 0.007 10 Raft Creek-Snake River 0.5 Not Known 0.024 13 Dukes Creek-Snake River 0.2 Natural Improved 0.039 McGraw Creek-Snake 16 River 0.1 Not Known 0.003 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.1 Natural Improved 0.004 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.4 Natural Unimproved 0.011 18 Upper Pine Creek 0.5 Not Known 0.015 18 Upper Pine Creek 1.0 Paved Hwy 0.031 19 McMullen Slough 0.2 Natural Improved 0.005 19 McMullen Slough 0.3 Natural Unimproved 0.010 19 McMullen Slough 0.2 Not Known 0.005 20 Clear Creek 0.2 Aggregate 0.007 20 Clear Creek 0.0 Natural Improved 0.002 20 Clear Creek 0.3 Natural Unimproved 0.010 21 East Pine Creek 0.3 Aggregate 0.007 21 East Pine Creek 0.2 Natural Improved 0.004 21 East Pine Creek 0.2 Natural Unimproved 0.004 21 East Pine Creek 0.1 Not Known 0.003 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 0.2 Aggregate 0.004 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 0.1 Natural Unimproved 0.004 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 0.4 Not Known 0.010 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 0.1 Paved Hwy 0.001 24 Upper North Pine Creek 0.0 Aggregate 0.001 24 Upper North Pine Creek 0.1 Bituminous 0.002 24 Upper North Pine Creek 1.5 Natural Unimproved 0.050 24 Upper North Pine Creek 0.1 Not Known 0.003 25 Lake Fork Creek 0.0 Bituminous 0.000 25 Lake Fork Creek 0.0 Natural Unimproved 0.000 26 Lower North Pine Creek 0.8 Aggregate 0.032 26 Lower North Pine Creek 0.1 Bituminous 0.003 26 Lower North Pine Creek 0.5 Natural Unimproved 0.019

275

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

27 Lower Pine Creek 0.2 Paved Hwy 0.010

276

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 1 ODOT Unknown Round 6.5 0 6.5 0 0 1 Road Gulch - Snake River 2 ODOT Unknown Full Box 13 0 12 0 0 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 3 ODOT Unknown Round 5 0 5 0 0 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 4 ODOT Unknown Full Box 7 0 8 0 0 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 5 ODOT Unknown Benson Full Box 10 0 12 0 0 5 Benson Creek Creek 6 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 7 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 6 Grouse Creek-Snake River 8 ODOT Unknown Round 5 0 5 0 0 5 Benson Creek 9 ODFW Unknown Morgan 9.8 55.1 16.4 4.5 0 8 Morgan Creek-Snake Creek River 10 ODFW Partial Morgan Round 1.6 25.6 1.6 6.1 0 8 Morgan Creek-Snake Creek River 11 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 19 McMullen Slough 12 ODOT Unknown Road Gulch Round 0 0 0 0 0 19 McMullen Slough 13 ODFW Unknown Round 5 45 5 2 0 19 McMullen Slough 14 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek 15 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 19 McMullen Slough 16 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 19 McMullen Slough 17 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 19 McMullen Slough 18 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek

277

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 19 ODOT Unknown McMullen Pipe Arch 4 0 6 0 0 19 McMullen Slough Slough 20 ODOT Unknown McMullen Pipe Arch 4 0 6 0 0 19 McMullen Slough Slough 21 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 22 Deer Creek-Pine Creek 22 ODFW Passable East Pine Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 21 East Pine Creek Creek 23 ODOT Unknown Melhorn Full Box 3 0 6 0 0 20 Clear Creek Slough 24 ODOT Unknown McMullen Round 3 0 3 0 0 19 McMullen Slough Slough 25 ODOT Unknown McMullen Round 3 0 3 0 0 19 McMullen Slough Slough 26 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 21 East Pine Creek 27 ODFW Unknown Dry Creek Round 6 75 6 0 2 21 East Pine Creek 28 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 21 East Pine Creek 29 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 30 ODFW Passable East Pine Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 21 East Pine Creek Creek 31 ODFW Unknown Round 8 50 8 1 0.2 21 East Pine Creek 32 ODFW Passable Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 33 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 34 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 35 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 36 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 37 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 38 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 39 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 40 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek

278

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 41 ODFW Unknown Lee Creek Round 4 60 4 2 0.6 19 McMullen Slough 42 ODFW Passable Dry Creek Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 21 East Pine Creek 43 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 19 McMullen Slough 44 ODFW Unknown Lee Creek Round 3 60 3 2 4 19 McMullen Slough 45 ODFW Passable Carson Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 19 McMullen Slough Creek 46 ODFW Passable Dry Creek Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 21 East Pine Creek 47 ODFW Unknown Fish Creek Round 6 100 6 1 4 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek 48 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 49 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 50 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 51 ODFW Passable Carson Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 19 McMullen Slough Creek 52 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 53 ODFW Unknown Dry Creek Round 6 50 6 3 0 21 East Pine Creek 54 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 55 ODOT Unknown Full Box 3 0 4 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 56 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 57 ODOT Unknown Benham Round 4 0 4 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek Creek 58 ODFW Unknown Carson Round 5 40 5 2 0.6 19 McMullen Slough Creek 59 USFS Unknown East Pine Open Arch 7 72 13.6 0.9 0 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa- Creek Whitman 60 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 61 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 62 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek

279

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 63 ODOT Unknown McCarty Round 4 0 4 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek Creek 64 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 65 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 66 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 67 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 68 ODOT Unknown Round 4 0 4 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 69 USFS Unknown Little Elk Round 8 76 8 1.8 2.4 26 Lower North Pine Creek Wallowa Creek Whitman (Pine/NRA) 70 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 71 USFS Partial East Pine Open Arch 7 48 14 0 0 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa Creek Whitman 72 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 73 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 74 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 75 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 76 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 27 Lower Pine Creek 77 USFS Partial Fall Creek Round 8 52 8 3.5 0 26 Lower North Pine Creek Wallowa Whitman 78 USFS Unknown East Pine OpenArch 10 62 20 2.3 0 20 Clear Creek Wallowa Creek Whitman

280

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 79 USFS Partial Trib. to E. Round 2 34 2 5.9 1.5 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa Pine Creek 2 Whitman (Pine) 80 ODOT Unknown Round 3 0 3 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 81 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 82 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 83 USFS Partial E. Pine Pipe Arch 3.5 32 5.1 1.3 1.5 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa Creek (Pine) Whitman 84 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 85 ODOT Unknown Round 2 0 2 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 86 USFS_Wall Partial Clarks Creek Pipe Arch 3.5 57 6 12.8 0.4 21 East Pine Creek owa- (Pine) Whitman 87 USFS_Wall Partial Trinity Pipe Arch 5.5 110 8 9.5 0 21 East Pine Creek owa- Creek (Pine) Whitman 88 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 89 USFS Blocked Okanogon Pipe Arch 5.1 91.5 7.3 7.1 3.4 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa Creek (Pine) Whitman 90 USFS Partial E. PINE CR. Open Arch 4.5 70.5 11 6.2 2.1 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa (Pine) Whitman 91 USFS Partial Trib. to E. Round 4 26 4 12.2 0 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa Pine Creek.1 Whitman (Pine)

281

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 92 USFS Partial Trib. to E. Round 4 24.2 4.1 3.9 0.3 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa Pine Creek.1 Whitman (Pine) 93 USFS Blocked Trail Creek Open Arch 0.5 78 1.1 13.6 5.5 20 Clear Creek Wallowa (Pine) Whitman 94 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 95 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 96 USFS Partial Clarks Creek Round 4 55 4 11.8 0.8 21 East Pine Creek Wallowa (Pine) Whitman 97 ODOT Unknown Round 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 18 Upper Pine Creek 98 USFS Unknown East Fork Low Flow 0 10 0 1.4 0 18 Upper Pine Creek Wallowa Pine Creek Ford Whitman (Pine) 99 USFS Partial Jolly Creek Round 4 66 4 1.6 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa Whitman 100 USFS Partial Duck Creek Open Arch 11 154 22 6.8 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa Whitman 101 USFS Partial Deer Creek Round 4 45 4 11.8 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa (NRA) Whitman 102 USFS Partial Grove Creek Round 3.5 42 3.5 7.7 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa Whitman

282

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 3 Culvert details. Culvert number is on map 6.2. Map no. Owner Fish Passage Stream Shape Height Length Width Slope Drop HUC 6 Name 103 USFS Partial Doe Creek Round 3.5 76 4 4.8 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa (NRA) Whitman 104 USFS Partial North Pine Pipe Arch 6 78 8.5 14 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa Creek Whitman 105 USFS Partial Duck Creek Round 3 39 3 0.5 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa Whitman 106 USFS Partial Duck Creek Round 3 39 3 7.1 0 24 Upper North Pine Creek Wallowa Whitman

283

Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description McGraw Creek-Snake 1 16 2 copper Dove Creek prospect Wallowa Homestead River McGraw Creek-Snake 2 16 1 cement materials Big Bar limestone Wallowa unnamed or NA surface River Hells Canyon Dam- 3 17 2 copper, silver, gold Brooklyn Group Wallowa Homestead underground Snake River Herman Creek-Snake 4 15 2 copper MacDougall Group Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 5 15 1 copper Hill claims Baker Homestead River Herman Creek-Snake 6 15 4 copper Cap. Miller claims Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 7 15 1 copper Rogers Group Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 8 15 2 copper Ballard Group Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 9 15 1 copper Cole Baker Homestead River Herman Creek-Snake 10 15 4 copper Rand-McCarthy prospects Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 11 15 1 copper Koger Group Baker Homestead River Herman Creek-Snake 12 15 4 copper, gold, silver Iron Dike Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 13 15 1 copper Farrell Group Baker Homestead underground River Herman Creek-Snake 14 15 2 copper Thorne Flat prospect Baker Homestead underground River

* 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 284 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Herman Creek-Snake 15 15 2 copper, gold, lead, zinc Red Mound Baker Homestead surface River Upper North Pine 16 24 1 gold Duck Creek placers Baker Homestead surface Creek 17 25 Lake Fork Creek 1 cement materials Twin lakes Baker unnamed or NA surface 18 21 East Pine Creek 1 gold East Trinity Baker unnamed or NA underground 19 20 Clear Creek 1 silver Clear Creek Reservoir Baker Wallowa none 20 18 Upper Pine Creek 1 silver Carnahan Baker Cornucopia surface 21 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold Norway Baker Cornucopia underground 22 20 Clear Creek 1 gold East Pine Creek Baker unnamed or NA underground gold, silver, lead, 23 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 Simmons Baker Cornucopia underground copper 24 18 Upper Pine Creek 2 gold, copper Red Mountain prospect Baker Cornucopia underground gold, lead, copper, Red Boy and Mountain 25 18 Upper Pine Creek 3 Baker Cornucopia silver Chief gold, zinc, lead, copper, 26 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 prospect Baker Cornucopia silver gold, silver, copper, Union-Companion Vein, 27 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 lead, zinc, arsenic, Baker Cornucopia underground Cornucopia Mine tellurium gold, silver, copper, Last Chance Vein, 28 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 lead, zinc, arsenic, Baker Cornucopia underground Cornucopia Mine tellurium 29 18 Upper Pine Creek 1 gold Jim Fisk Baker Cornucopia 30 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold, silver E & M Baker Cornucopia underground Wallingford Vein, 31 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold, silver, lead, zinc Baker Cornucopia underground Cornucopia Mine Valley View Vein, 32 18 Upper Pine Creek 3 gold, silver Baker Cornucopia underground Cornucopia Mine 33 21 East Pine Creek 4 copper, silver, abrasive Copper Queen Baker Cornucopia underground * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 285 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description 34 21 East Pine Creek 4 stone, crushed Howard Buchanan Baker unnamed or NA surface 35 21 East Pine Creek stone, crushed Gulick Pit Baker OPA surface 36 21 East Pine Creek 4 sand and gravel Norval Greener Baker unnamed or NA surface 37 19 McMullen Slough 4 stone, crushed Dead Cow Butte Pit Baker unnamed or NA surface

38 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold Cornucopia Mine Baker Cornucopia underground

39 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold unnamed or NA Baker Cornucopia underground 40 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold Cornucopia Minerals Baker Cornucopia 41 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold Anchorage Exploration Co. Baker Cornucopia 42 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold Milton Steinmetz Property Baker Cornucopia surface 43 20 Clear Creek 4 sand and gravel Clear Creek Baker unnamed or NA surface 44 18 Upper Pine Creek 4 gold Aurous Mining Co. Baker Cornucopia surface 45 18 Upper Pine Creek 2 gold, silver Bigelow prospect Baker Cornucopia surface 46 19 McMullen Slough 4 sand and gravel Cook Road Pit Baker unnamed or NA surface Deer Creek-Pine 47 22 4 sand and gravel Dead Cow Butte Baker unnamed or NA surface Creek Raft Creek-Snake 48 10 2 gold gold prospect Baker Conner Creek River Raft Creek-Snake 49 10 4 gold, silver Snake River quarry Baker Conner Creek surface River Raft Creek-Snake 50 10 4 gold Daily Creek Ranch Baker Conner Creek River Raft Creek-Snake 51 10 4 gold, silver gold mine Baker Conner Creek River Raft Creek-Snake 52 10 4 gold gold mine Baker Conner Creek River Raft Creek-Snake 53 10 4 gold gold mine Baker Conner Creek River

* 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 286 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Raft Creek-Snake 54 10 4 gold, silver Olson's placer Baker Connor Creek surface River Raft Creek-Snake Quicksand Creek Tunnel 55 10 2 gold, silver Baker Conner Creek underground River gold prospect Raft Creek-Snake Soda Creek uranium 56 10 1 uranium Baker Connor Creek River prospect Raft Creek-Snake 57 10 gold, silver Snake River Mines Baker Conner Creek River Raft Creek-Snake 58 10 4 gold Schist Baker Connor Creek underground River Raft Creek-Snake gold, silver, antimony, 59 10 4 Mullin prospect Baker Connor Creek River copper Raft Creek-Snake 60 10 4 gold, silver Hallam gold Mill Baker Conner Creek River Morgan Creek-Snake gold, silver, copper, 61 8 1 Liddy Group Baker Connor Creek River antimony Morgan Creek-Snake 62 8 1 cement materials Buchart Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 63 8 1 cement materials Connor & Fox Creeks Baker Connor Creek surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 64 8 1 cement materials Upper Connor Creek Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 65 8 1 mercury Connor Creek Baker Connor Creek underground River Morgan Creek-Snake mercury, chromium, 66 8 2 Connor Creek prospect Baker Conner Creek surface River gold, nickel Morgan Creek-Snake 67 8 4 chromium Kromite Mining Co. Baker Connor Creek River Morgan Creek-Snake 68 8 4 gold, silver Connor Creek Mine Baker Connor Creek underground River Morgan Creek-Snake 69 8 4 gold gold mine Baker Conner Creek River * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 287 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Morgan Creek-Snake 70 8 4 gold gold mine Baker Conner Creek River Morgan Creek-Snake 71 8 4 chromium Lambert & Flick Baker Connor Creek surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 72 8 4 cement materials Ash Grove property Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 73 8 4 gold Sisley Bar Baker Conner Creek River Morgan Creek-Snake 74 8 4 gold Connor Creek placers Baker Connor Creek underground River Morgan Creek-Snake 75 8 4 gold, silver gold mine Baker Conner Creek River Morgan Creek-Snake 76 8 1 chromium unnamed or NA Baker Conner Creek surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 77 8 1 talc and soapstone Lower Hibbard Creek Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 78 8 1 cement materials Summit Creek Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 79 8 1 talc and soapstone Upper Hibbard Creek Baker unnamed or NA surface River Ryan Gulch-Snake silver, copper, lead, 80 7 4 Bay Horse Baker Connor Creek underground River zinc Ryan Gulch-Snake 81 7 4 gypsum Gypsum Mine Baker Conner Creek surface River Ryan Gulch-Snake 82 7 4 stone, crushed Gypsum Baker unnamed or NA surface River Grouse Creek-Snake 83 6 4 sand and gravel gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface River 84 2 Upper Birch Creek 1 cement materials Limestone Butte Baker unnamed or NA surface 85 2 Upper Birch Creek 4 sand and gravel Section 16 gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 86 25 Lake Fork Creek 2 cement materials Black Cat Baker unnamed or NA surface * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 288 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description 87 25 Lake Fork Creek 2 gold Thunder Mountain Baker unnamed or NA Road Gulch-Snake 88 1 4 stone, crushed Mp 390.6 Old Oregon Trail Malheur unnamed or NA surface River 89 2 Upper Birch Creek 2 asbestos New Discovery Asbestos Malheur unnamed or NA surface Road Gulch-Snake 90 1 1 mercury, gold Lackey Malheur unnamed or NA underground River 91 3 Love Reservoir Creek 3 gold Kerby Site Malheur unnamed or NA Road Gulch-Snake 92 1 1 mercury Clay Cinnabar Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake quartz crystals and 93 1 2 Huntington Calcite Malheur unnamed or NA surface River opitcal calcite 94 3 Love Reservoir Creek 4 sand and gravel John Stringer Silica Malheur unnamed or NA surface McGraw Creek-Snake 95 16 gold prospect Wallowa unnamed or NA River Herman Creek-Snake 96 15 copper unnamed or NA Wallowa unnamed or NA underground River Herman Creek-Snake 97 15 copper unnamed or NA Wallowa unnamed or NA underground River Herman Creek-Snake 98 15 copper unnamed or NA Wallowa unnamed or NA underground River Herman Creek-Snake 99 15 copper prospect Wallowa unnamed or NA River Upper North Pine 100 24 stone, crushed gravel pit Wallowa unnamed or NA surface Creek Herman Creek-Snake 101 15 copper unnamed or NA Wallowa unnamed or NA underground River Herman Creek-Snake 102 15 copper, gold, silver Macdougall Group Wallowa unnamed or NA underground River Herman Creek-Snake 103 15 copper mine shaft Baker unnamed or NA underground River 104 15 Herman Creek-Snake copper prospect Baker unnamed or NA * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 289 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

* 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 290 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Herman Creek-Snake 120 15 copper prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Upper North Pine 121 24 stone, crushed quarry Baker unnamed or NA surface Creek 122 25 Lake Fork Creek sand and gravel gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 123 21 East Pine Creek sand and gravel gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 124 18 Upper Pine Creek metal prospect Baker unnamed or NA 125 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 126 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 127 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 128 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 129 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 130 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 131 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 132 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 133 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 134 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 135 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 136 18 Upper Pine Creek metal prospect Baker unnamed or NA 137 18 Upper Pine Creek metal prospect Baker unnamed or NA 138 18 Upper Pine Creek metal unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA underground 139 2 Upper Birch Creek metal prospect Baker unnamed or NA Herman Creek-Snake 140 15 copper prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Herman Creek-Snake 141 15 copper prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Herman Creek-Snake 142 15 copper Hill Property Baker unnamed or NA underground River * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 291 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Herman Creek-Snake 143 15 copper Cap Miller Claims Baker unnamed or NA underground River 144 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Queen of the West Baker unnamed or NA underground Elk Creek gold Mining 145 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Baker unnamed or NA underground Company 146 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Smith George W. Claims Baker unnamed or NA underground 147 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Mayflower Mine Baker unnamed or NA underground 148 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Cornucopia Vein Baker unnamed or NA underground 149 18 Upper Pine Creek gold, silver Granite Mountain Veins Baker unnamed or NA underground 150 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Jackley Claims Baker unnamed or NA underground 151 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Lost Horse Group Baker unnamed or NA surface Herman Creek-Snake Nugget Corporation of 152 15 gold Baker unnamed or NA surface River Oregon Placer Oxbow Dam-Snake 153 14 silver, copper prospect No. 1 Baker unnamed or NA surface River 154 27 Lower Pine Creek stone, crushed unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA surface Oxbow Dam-Snake 155 14 silver, copper Eagle Island Creek prospect Baker unnamed or NA surface River 156 21 East Pine Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 157 20 Clear Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 158 21 East Pine Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 159 21 East Pine Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 160 23 Fish Creek-Pine Creek active stone, crushed unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA surface 161 21 East Pine Creek active stone, crushed Summers Ranch Baker OPA surface 162 20 Clear Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 163 18 Upper Pine Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 164 20 Clear Creek stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface 165 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Farwest Milling and Mining Baker unnamed or NA surface * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 292 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Co. 166 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Bonanza Mine Baker unnamed or NA surface Anchorage Exploration Co 167 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Baker unnamed or NA underground Mine 168 18 Upper Pine Creek gold Pine Creek Mining Co. Baker unnamed or NA surface Deer Creek-Pine 169 22 stone, crushed Deer Butte Baker unnamed or NA surface Creek Raft Creek-Snake 170 10 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Raft Creek-Snake 171 10 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Raft Creek-Snake 172 10 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Raft Creek-Snake 173 10 stone, crushed gravel pit Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake mercury, chromium, 174 8 prospect Baker Conner Creek River gold, nickel Morgan Creek-Snake mercury, chromium, 175 8 prospect Baker Conner Creek River gold, nickel Morgan Creek-Snake 176 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Morgan Creek-Snake 177 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Morgan Creek-Snake 178 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Morgan Creek-Snake 179 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Morgan Creek-Snake 180 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Morgan Creek-Snake 181 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 293 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Morgan Creek-Snake 182 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Morgan Creek-Snake 183 8 gold prospect Baker unnamed or NA River Raft Creek-Snake 184 10 gold Soda Creek Mine Baker unnamed or NA underground River Raft Creek-Snake 185 10 gold, silver Liddy Group Baker unnamed or NA underground River Morgan Creek-Snake 186 8 cement materials Conner & Fox Creeks Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 187 8 cement materials Ash Grove Property Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 188 8 gold Mccorkle & Shane Baker unnamed or NA surface River Morgan Creek-Snake 189 8 chromium North Star Tunnel Site #2 Baker unnamed or NA surface River Road Gulch-Snake 190 1 stone, crushed gravel pit Malheur unnamed or NA surface River Road Gulch-Snake 191 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake 192 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake 193 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake 194 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake 195 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake 196 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River Road Gulch-Snake 197 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River * 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 294 Appendix 6 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A6. 4 Mining activity in the Brownlee assessment area. Map number locations are shown on map 6.1. Map HUC 6 Work HUC 6 Name Status* Commodity Site name County Mining District No. Code Description Grouse Creek-Snake 198 6 active stone, crushed unnamed or NA Baker unnamed or NA surface River Road Gulch-Snake 199 1 gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA River 200 3 Love Reservoir Creek gold, mercury prospect Malheur unnamed or NA Road Gulch-Snake 201 1 active stone, crushed unnamed or NA Malheur unnamed or NA surface River

* 1 Mineral occurrence (no workings and/or production) 2 Raw prospect (minor workings but no production) 3 Developed prospect (workings but no production) 4 Mine (present or past producer) 295 Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 7

Table A7. 1 Summary of channel modifications. Map number locations are shown on map 7.1. Map Channel HUC 6 No. Data source CHT length (ft) Degree of Impact Type of Impact Name of Dam Code HUC 6 Name Road Gulch- 1 NHD SV 160 Low stock pond 1 Snake River Road Gulch- 2 DOGAMI MC and MV 900 Moderate quarry 1 Snake River Road Gulch- 3 NHD MC 0 Moderate pond created by road 1 Snake River Road Gulch- 4 NHD MV 250 low stock pond 1 Snake River Love Reservoir 5 OWRD MC 3500 moderate dam Love Reservoir 2 Creek Love Reservoir 6 NHD MH 125 low stock pond 2 Creek Love Reservoir 7 NHD MV 180 low stock pond 2 Creek Lower Birch 8 OWRD MH 620 low dam McBride Reservoir 2 Creek Rane Ranch Lower Birch 9 OWRD not mapped 880 Low dam 2 Reservoir Creek Lower Birch 10 NHD MV 200 low stock pond 2 Creek Lower Birch 11 NHD MV 190 low stock pond 2 Creek Lower Birch 12 NHD MV 390 low stock pond 2 Creek East Hodgkins Lower Birch 13 ODFW SV 70 low stock pond 2 Reservoir Creek Upper Birch 14 NHD SV 150 low stock pond 2 Creek

296

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 1 Summary of channel modifications. Map number locations are shown on map 7.1. Map Channel HUC 6 No. Data source CHT length (ft) Degree of Impact Type of Impact Name of Dam Code HUC 6 Name Upper Birch 15 NHD MV 200 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 16 NHD MV 340 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 17 NHD MV 50 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 18 NHD MV 100 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 19 NHD MH 70 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 20 NHD MV 160 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 21 OWRD MH 480 moderate dam Kivett 2 2 Creek Upper Birch 22 OWRD MV 330 moderate dam Kivett 1 2 Creek Upper Birch 23 NHD MH 240 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 24 NWI MH 0 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 25 NHD MV 100 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 26 NHD SV 60 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 27 NHD MV 380 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 28 NHD MV 270 low stock pond 2 Creek Upper Birch 29 NHD MV 150 low stock pond 3 Creek Upper Birch 30 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 3 Creek

297

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 1 Summary of channel modifications. Map number locations are shown on map 7.1. Map Channel HUC 6 No. Data source CHT length (ft) Degree of Impact Type of Impact Name of Dam Code HUC 6 Name Upper Birch 31 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 3 Creek Upper Birch 32 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 4 Creek Upper Birch 33 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 4 Creek Upper Birch 34 NHD MV 470 low stock pond 4 Creek Upper Birch 35 NWI LM 0 low stock pond 4 Creek Upper Birch 36 NHD LM 700 moderate stock pond 4 Creek Upper Birch 37 NHD SV 20 low stock pond 4 Creek Lower Birch 38 NHD MH 140 low stock pond 4 Creek 39 ODFW NHD MV 800 moderate stock pond Benson Reservoir 5 Benson Creek 40 NHD MV 190 low stock pond 5 Benson Creek

41 NHD SV 0 low stock pond 5 Benson Creek

Morgan Creek- 42 NWI VH 140 low stock pond 8 Snake River Jackson Gulch- 43 NHD VH 220 low stock pond 10 Snake River Cottonwood 44 NWI SV 130 low stock pond 11 Creek-Snake

River Cottonwood 45 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 12 Creek-Snake

River Raft Creek- 46 aerial not mapped 0 low stock pond 12 Snake River

298

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

River Deer Creek-Pine 53 NHD, NWI not mapped 0 low stock pond 18 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 54 NHD SV 190 low stock pond 18 Creek aerial Deer Creek-Pine 55 MV 70 low stock pond 19 photograph Creek Crow - F.M. Deer Creek-Pine 56 OWRD MH 1600 medium dam 19 Reservoir Creek Deer Creek-Pine 57 NHD MV 150 low stock pond 19 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 58 NHD SV 250 low stock pond 19 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 59 NWI none 0 low off channel stock pond 19 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 60 NHD SV 90 low stock pond 19 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 61 NWI MV 130 low stock pond 19 Creek

299

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 1 Summary of channel modifications. Map number locations are shown on map 7.1. Map Channel HUC 6 No. Data source CHT length (ft) Degree of Impact Type of Impact Name of Dam Code HUC 6 Name Deer Creek-Pine 62 NWI MV 50 low stock pond 20 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 63 NWI MV 30 low stock pond 20 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 64 NHD not mapped 0 low off channel stock pond 20 Creek McMullen 65 NHD MH 90 low stock pond 21 Slough McMullen 66 NWI MH 70 low stock pond 22 Slough Deer Creek-Pine 67 NHD SV 100 low stock pond 22 Creek McMullen 68 NHD SV 100 low stock pond 22 Slough McMullen 69 NHD MH 140 low stock pond 22 Slough McMullen 70 OWRD MH 1900 moderate dam Laird Reservoir 22 Slough McMullen 71 NHD SV 85 low stock pond 22 Slough Herman Creek- 72 NHD VH 60 low stock pond 22 Snake River Deer Creek-Pine 73 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 22 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 74 NHD not mapped 0 low stock pond 22 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 75 NHD MV 0 low stock pond 22 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 76 NHD MH 110 low stock pond 22 Creek Deer Creek-Pine 77 NHD MH 0 low stock pond 22 Creek

300

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

83 OWRD MH 0 moderate dam Fish Lake 22 Lake Fork Creek Sugar Loaf 84 OWRD MH 1300 Moderate dam 22 Lake Fork Creek Reservoir 85 NHD MH 100 low stock pond 22 Lake Fork Creek

Clear Creek 86 OWRD SV 1850 High dam 22 Clear Creek Reservoir 87 OWRD MH 0 Moderate dam Mehlhorn & Bassett 22 Clear Creek Upper Pine 88 OWRD VH 780 moderate dam East Lakes Creek 22 Creek Upper Pine 89 OWRD VH 475 moderate dam Thompson Reservoir 23 Creek Upper Pine 90 OWRD VH 0 moderate dam Twin Lake Lower 23 Creek high (ODFW fish Upper Pine 91 OWRD VH 0 dam Twin Lake Upper 23 barrier) Creek 92 NHD MV 50 low stock pond 23 East Pine Creek

aerial Oxbow Dam- 93 LC 21 miles high hydroelectric dam Hells Canyon Dam 25 photograph Snake River aerial Oxbow Dam- 94 LC 9 miles high hydroelectic dam Oxbow Dam 25 photograph Snake River

301

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 1 Summary of channel modifications. Map number locations are shown on map 7.1. Map Channel HUC 6 No. Data source CHT length (ft) Degree of Impact Type of Impact Name of Dam Code HUC 6 Name aerial Oxbow Dam- 95 LC 50 miles high hydroelectric dam Brownlee Dam 25 photograph Snake River aerial McMullen 96 not mapped 0 low stock pond 25 photograph Slough 97 ODFW, NHD MH 140 high stock pond 20 Clear Creek

302

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 2 Stream Channels impacted by mining. Features are shown on map 7.1

Map Channel Degree of HUC 6 Data Source CHT Type of impact PBWC Name number length (ft) impact Code DOGAMI mine data base 1 SV 434 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 2 SV 299 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 3 SV 289 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 4 SV 3,866 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 5 SV 1,171 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 6 SV 435 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 7 VH 274 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph

303

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 2 Stream Channels impacted by mining. Features are shown on map 7.1

Map Channel Degree of HUC 6 Data Source CHT Type of impact PBWC Name number length (ft) impact Code DOGAMI mine data base 8 VH 744 high mining 8 Morgan Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 9 VH 291 moderate mining 18 Upper Pine Creek and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 10 MV 5,608 high placer mine 18 Upper Pine Creek and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 11 MV 1,618 high placer mine 18 Upper Pine Creek and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 12 MV 5,216 high placer mine 18 Upper Pine Creek and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 13 MV 1,434 high placer mine 18 Upper Pine Creek and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 14 VH 479 high mining 15 Herman Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 15 VH 523 high mining 15 Herman Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph

304

Appendix 7 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A7. 2 Stream Channels impacted by mining. Features are shown on map 7.1

Map Channel Degree of HUC 6 Data Source CHT Type of impact PBWC Name number length (ft) impact Code DOGAMI mine data base 16 VH 125 high mining 15 Herman Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 17 VH 246 high mining 15 Herman Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph DOGAMI mine data base 18 VH 619 high mining 15 Herman Creek-Snake River and aerial photograph

305

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Appendix 8

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1

Stream Temperatures (*F)

2010 NHD 2004/2006 DEQ 1998 DEQ temp. Existing stream Elev Creek Hobo No. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 HUC 6 temp. standard standard temperature conditions (ft) name

Lake Fork 15D.Asp. Temperatures at this site Aspen 53.6 50 5400 * * * 67.35 62.95 * * 62.36 * 64.12 Creek 1 ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

East Pine Temperatures at this site Beecher 15H.BE.1 68 64.04 3440 69.51 * * 73.91 70.02 72.16 * 72.36 69.8 69.24 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Big Elk 15D.BE.1 53.6 50 5680 * * * 65.01 61.78 * * 64.22 * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Temperatures at this site Clear 15J.0 53.6 50 * 63.94 * * * * * * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Clear (below Temperatures at this site 15J.1a 53.6 50 3360 * * * 61.97 61.58 * * * * * Creek Deadrick ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard Ditch)

Clear Clear (above Temperatures at this site 15J.1b 53.6 50 * * * * * * 66.17 62.85 * * Creek Deadrick ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

ditch)

Clear Temperatures at this site Clear 15J.2 53.6 50 4320 * * * * * * 62.27 58.93 * 61.19 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Temperatures at this site Clear 15J.3 53.6 50 4700 * * * * * * 63.44 59.62 * 62.07 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

306

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1

Stream Temperatures (*F)

2010 NHD 2004/2006 DEQ 1998 DEQ temp. Existing stream Elev Creek Hobo No. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 HUC 6 temp. standard standard temperature conditions (ft) name

Clear Temperatures at this site Clear 15J.4 53.6 50 5760 * * * 60.52 58.22 * 62.56 * * 61.29 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Temperatures at this site Clear 15J.4b 53.6 50 * * * * * * * * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Temperatures at this site Clear** 15J.5** 53.6 50 6340 * * * 62.56 * * * * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Upper Temperatures at this site North Pine Duck 15E.1 53.6 no value given 3980 * * * 67.55 65.69 * 68.44 70.98 * 69.22 ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard Creek

Upper Temperatures at this site North Pine Duck 15E.2 53.6 no value given 4600 * * * * 59.42 * 63.54 62.85 * * ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard Creek

Old value unknown. Upper East Creek standard Temperatures at this site Pine Fork 15L.1 53.6 updated in 2004 5200 * * * 58.04 54.88 * * * * * ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard Creek Pine when status change entered into data base

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 70.4 15H.0a 68 64.04 2640 * * 74.75 * 74.53 * 73.27 75.7 72.3 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 6

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 67.9 15H.0b 68 unknown 2800 * 69.37 72.84 68.96 * * 71.25 72.9 70.7 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 1

307

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1

Stream Temperatures (*F)

2010 NHD 2004/2006 DEQ 1998 DEQ temp. Existing stream Elev Creek Hobo No. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 HUC 6 temp. standard standard temperature conditions (ft) name

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 70.1 15H.0c 68 unknown 3000 * * 74.75 69.09 73.35 * 74.45 * 72.26 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 6

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 70.4 15H.1 68 unknown 3440 * * 73.44 67.94 71.87 * 72.75 73.5 70.2 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 2

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 15H.2 68 unknown 3460 * * * 73.09 67.87 71.97 * 72.71 73.7 * Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 65.3 71.4 15H.2b 68 unknown 3500 * 66.41 70.14 65.42 69.41 * 69.89 67.4 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 4 1

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 62.3 15H.3 68 unknown 3720 * 63.4 66.91 62.61 65.2 * * 66.6 * Creek Pine BELOW 2004 DEQ Standard 3

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 61.9 65.7 15H.4 53.6 50 3780 * 63.06 66.41 62.12 64.42 * 66.41 62.75 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 2 9

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 61.3 15H.5 53.6 50 4000 * * 66.24 62.57 64.91 * 66.24 65.8 62.83 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 8

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 58.2 61.8 15H.5b 53.6 50 4400 * 58.9 62.03 58.82 60.6 * 62.36 * Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 2 7

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 61.1 15H.5c 53.6 50 4560 * * * * * 59.81 60.8 61.54 * Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 9

East Pine East Temperatures at this site 54.3 58.1 15H.6 53.6 50 5280 * 55.3 57.45 55.54 56.36 * 57.85 55.9 Creek Pine ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 8 3

308

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1

Stream Temperatures (*F)

2010 NHD 2004/2006 DEQ 1998 DEQ temp. Existing stream Elev Creek Hobo No. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 HUC 6 temp. standard standard temperature conditions (ft) name

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Elk 15D.1 53.6 50 3640 * * * 65 61.48 * 66.17 64.52 * 64.71 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Elk 15D.2 53.6 50 4560 * * * 63.05 * * * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Elk 15D.3 53.6 50 5320 * * * 65 62.26 * 65.69 63.24 * 64.42 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Elk 15D.4 53.6 50 5680 * * * 60.8 58.53 * 60.9 58.14 * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Lake Fk 15C.1 68 64.04 3160 * * * 68.73 64.22 * 70 68.43 * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Lake Fk 15C.2 68 64.04 3660 * * * 67.26 63.93 * 66.17 66.77 * * Creek BELOW 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Lake Fk 15C.3 68 64.04 4840 * * * * 61.19 * 62.07 * * * Creek BELOW 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Lake Fk 15C.4 53.6 64.04 4900 * * * * 60.99 * 62.66 * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Lake Fk 15C.6 53.6 64.04 6040 * * * 63.83 * * * * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Lake Fork Temperatures at this site Lake Fk 15C.7S 53.6 64.04 6560 * * * 69.41 * * * * * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

309

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1

Stream Temperatures (*F)

2010 NHD 2004/2006 DEQ 1998 DEQ temp. Existing stream Elev Creek Hobo No. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 HUC 6 temp. standard standard temperature conditions (ft) name

Clear Temperatures at this site Meadow 15J.1 53.6 50 4620 * * * * 54.28 * 56.36 56.56 * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Temperatures at this site Meadow 15J.2 53.6 50 5300 * * * 61.78 57.84 * 59.03 54.68 * 57.74 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

Clear Temperatures at this site Meadow 15J.3 53.6 50 5440 * * * 60.9 54.78 * 59.32 55.08 * 56.36 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

East Pine Okanoga 15H.Okan Temperatures at this site 66.2 69.2 53.6 64.04 3840 * 68.24 69.08 65.75 68.53 * * 66 Creek n .1 ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 9 3

East Pine Okanoga 15H.Okan Temperatures at this site 57.5 58.6 53.6 64.04 4880 * 58.61 58.94 57.37 * * 58.46 57.65 Creek n .2 ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 4 3

Upper Temperatures at this site Pine Pine 15L.0a 68 unknown 4160 * * * * 58.34 * 62.36 58.24 * 60.7 BELOW 2004 DEQ Standard Creek

Upper Temperatures at this site Pine Pine 15L.1 53.6 unknown 4820 * * * * * * 57.35 56.27 * 55.08 ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard Creek

Upper Temperatures at this site Pine Pine 15L.2 53.6 unknown 4920 * * * * * * * 55.47 * * ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard Creek

Clear Temperatures at this site Trail 15J.1 53.6 50 4480 * * * 58.53 55.97 * 59.42 58.93 * * Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard

310

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 1 USFS temperature data. Temperature locations are shown by Hobo number on map 8.1

Stream Temperatures (*F)

2010 NHD 2004/2006 DEQ 1998 DEQ temp. Existing stream Elev Creek Hobo No. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 HUC 6 temp. standard standard temperature conditions (ft) name

Clear Temperatures at this site Trail 15J.2 53.6 50 5480 * * * * * * 53.49 53.49 * * Creek BELOW 2004 DEQ Standard

East Pine 15H.Trin. Temperatures at this site 61.9 Trinity 53.6 64.04 3960 * * 65.21 60.77 63.34 * * 63.8 60.1 Creek 1 ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 1

East Pine Temperatures at this site 61.0 Trinity 15H.Trin2 53.6 64.04 4160 * * 64.01 58.94 65.48 * * 64.7 62.44 Creek ABOVE 2004 DEQ Standard 2 NOTE regarding 1998 and 2011 Stream temperature data: 1. The 2011 list does not include several streams found in the 2000 Pine Watershed Assessment. In some cases good electronic data could not be found, in other cases site names were changed. 2. West Fork Clear Creek 5 in 1998 is now listed as Clear Creek 15J.5 3. East Fk Clear Creek: only electronic data that would be found was for a site listed as Melhorn Creek with an electronic start date of 8/3/1995. Therefore not shown in 2011 list. 4. Pole Creek: only electronic data that could be found for 1994 had a starte data of 8/9/1995. The source of the 1995 number is unknown. Therefore, not shown in 2011 list. 5. 1998 Fish Lake Fork Creek 6: Now referred to as Lake Fork 15C.6. 6. 1998 Fish Lake Fork Creek 7S: Now referred to as Lake Fork 15C.7S.

311

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 2 BLM temperature data. Station locations are shown on map 8.1

Station Stream / Location Years Max temperature Annual Maximum of the Notes Number monitored recorded 7-day Moving Average

1 Connor Creek 2000 18.8 15.6 Multiple readings with HOBO

1 Connor Creek 2001 16.4 14.5 Multiple readings with HOBO

2 East Fork Pine Creek above Cornicopia (Pine, Snake) 2000 15.1 11.2 Multiple readings with HOBO

3 Fox Creek 2000 19 15.6 Multiple readings with HOBO

4 Fox Creek #2 2001 16.8 13.5 Multiple readings with HOBO

4 Fox Creek #2 2002 16.4 14.0 Multiple readings with HOBO

5 Morgan Creek 2000 16.6 16.5 Multiple readings with HOBO

5 Morgan Creek 2001 23.6 18.1 Multiple readings with HOBO

6 Pine Creek at River Mile 13 (Snake), next to Hwy 82, 1999 20.9 - 4 readings downstream of Long Branch Creek, upstream of Oxbow Dam

312

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 2 BLM temperature data. Station locations are shown on map 8.1

Station Stream / Location Years Max temperature Annual Maximum of the Notes Number monitored recorded 7-day Moving Average

6 Pine Creek at River Mile 13 (Snake), next to Hwy 82, 2000 19.8 - 3 readings downstream of Long Branch Creek, upstream of Oxbow Dam

7 Pine Creek at River Mile 19.2 (Snake), just downstream of 1999 17.6 - 4 readings Hwy 86 bridge

7 Pine Creek at River Mile 19.2 (Snake), just downstream of 2000 15.6 - 3 readings Hwy 86 bridge

8 Pine Creek at River Mile 26.3 (Snake), downstream of Lost 1999 12.3 - 4 readings Horse Creek, upstream of Bonanza Mine

8 Pine Creek at River Mile 26.3 (Snake), downstream of Lost 2000 14.9 - 3 readings Horse Creek, upstream of Bonanza Mine

9 Pine Creek at River Mile 29.5 (Snake), downstream of Lost 1999 11.2 - 4 readings Horse Creek, upstream of Bonanza Mine

9 Pine Creek at River Mile 29.5 (Snake), downstream of Lost 2000 12.8 - 3 readings Horse Creek, upstream of Bonanza Mine

10 Pine Creek at River Mile 8.3 (Snake), 0.25 miles upstream 2000 22.7 - Multiple readings of Fish Creek with HOBO

11 Pine Creek near Snake River 2000 28.3 23.5 Multiple readings with HOBO

313

Appendix 8 Brownlee Subbasin Watershed Assessment

Table A8. 2 BLM temperature data. Station locations are shown on map 8.1

Station Stream / Location Years Max temperature Annual Maximum of the Notes Number monitored recorded 7-day Moving Average

12 Quicksand Creek #1 2001 27 20.7 Multiple readings with HOBO

12 Quicksand Creek #1 2002 28.2 22.4 Multiple readings with HOBO

314